


i 












•• 



'^iii 




i. 



iiSiW 



Wt^V\l.K\\J!« 



:iP^ 









l'V1K.)!Iv>^1 



WM^ 







Qass. 
Book. 






ALBANY ARGUS EXTRA. 




THE ^. ^CJ 



VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, 

AND THE • / ^ 

FACTS, 

IN RELATION TO THE REJECTION 



OF 



MARTIN VAN BUREN, 

BY THE U. S. SENATE. 




^of W 



^ALBANY: 

PRINTED BY PACKARD AND VAN BENTHUYSEN, 

1832. 



:^. 



• ^ % «4\ 






^■^^ 






TMK VOICE OF JTEW-YORIC. 

At a meeting of the republican members of the Legislature of the State of New- York, convened in tti^ 

Assembly chamber, on Friday evening, February 3, 18^2, the Hon. EDWARD P. LIVINGSTON i 

Lieut. Governor and President of the Senate, was called to the chair, and the Hon. CHARLES L. 

LIVINGSTON, Speaker of the Assembly, and Hon. EDWARD HOWELL of Steuben, appointed 

<^><», secretaries. 

v- Mr. N. P. Tallmadge, of the Senate, chairman of the committee appointed to call legislative 

■-. meetings, offered the following resolutions on behalf of the committee, viz : 

l. Resolved, That we look upon the rejection of the nomination of MARTIN VAN BUREN as Mini3- 

T\ ter Plenipotentiary to Great Britain, as an act calculated in tlie highest degree, to reflect dishonor upon 
(„, the nation in the eyes of foreign states, and to degrade the Senate of the United States in the eyes of 
"li, our own citizens : 

i- That it is, at this time, the more to be deprecated, as its tendency is to draw into doubt and Uncer- 

tainty with the British government, the policy of our own, by stamping with condemnation an appoint-* 
ment made by. the Chief Magistrate, for the purpose of 'concluding a negotiation, for the settlement of 
questions involving principles of the highest national importance; a negotiation, of winch the failure 
might possibly lead to an interruption of our friendly relations with a power, between w^hom and our- 
selves, it is of vital interest to both parties, that a mutual good understanding should be maintained: 

That it is an indignity offered to the Chief Magistrate of the nation, and an insult to his loi^, devoted 
and patriotic services; that it is worthy of being a concluding scene to the drama, which opened by ar- 
raigning his military character on the lloor of Congress, and continued by waging a vindictive warfare 
against his late cabinet, and by invading with ruthless violence, the sanctuary of his domestic peace: 

That it is an outrage to the unblemished private character, eminent talents and distinguished public 
services of the individual whose nomination has been rejected ; carrying with it the disheartening mo- 
ral, that no purity of reputation is a safeguard against the envy and malice which are constantly seeldng 
to bring down to their own level in the scale of opinion, all who .succeed, by disinterestedness and virtue, 
in rising above it: 

That in the rejection of his nomination, the public expectation has been disappointed, the public 
honor tarnished, and the public interests put at hazard, by a corrupt combination for political objects. 

Resolved, That we have the highest confidence in the integrity, patriotism, talents and virtue of 
MARTIN VAN BUREN ; that we regret his rejection only in its relation to the public interests, and 
in its tendency to degrade the character of the Senate of the United States in the eyes of the nation^ 
and the character of the nation in the eyes of the W'Orld: — confident in the belief that corrupt condem- 
nations, by whatever tribunal pronounced, always hare the effect of elevating those whom they are in- 
tended to destroy. 

Resolved, That in turning our attention from the authors of this foul disgrace to the People of the 
State of New-York, we recognize the proper tribunal for reversing this unrighteous judgment; that we 
have unbounded confidence in theirrntelligence, their virtue and their justice; and that we look to them 
for suitable manifestations of their abhon-ence of the wanton injury visited upon an illustrious citizen^ 
and, through him, the dishonor visited upon the country. 

Resolved, That the thanks of the nation are due to those members of the Senate of the United States,- 
who, faithful to the public interests and to their own honor, firmly, though fruitlessly, resisted the sa- 
crifice of an individual, distinguished for public and private virtues, at the altar of personal hostility. 

Resolved, That considering the rejection of Mr. VAN BUREN as a blow aimed at the President of 
the United States, thi-ough an individual high in his confidence, we deem it proper on this occasion, to 
express our entire confidence in his character, talenis and the principles of his administration; that the 
successive attempts to impair his standing and embarrass his public course, have had the effect of ele- 
vating him in our estimation, and confirming his claims to our respect and gratitude; and that we pledo-e 
ourselves to rally around and sustain him against a combination of political aspirants, whose success 
would be as disieputable to the character of the country, and as desolating to its prosperity, as his civil 
and military services have been glorious to the one and invaluable to the other. 

Mr. Tali.madge, having read the resolutions, addressed tlie meeting v.-ith great eloquence and 
effect. He depicted the life and services of MARTIN VAN BUREN— his devotion to the democra- 
cy — his career, as brilliant as it had been useful, in the maintenance of great constitutional and republi- 
can principles — the ardent attachment of the people of New-York to him who under all circumstances 
had consulted their interests and devoted himself to their welfare — the eminence to which, under the 
confidence of a republican people, he had raised himself, without the adventitious aids of v,'ealth and 
rank — the ability and fidelity with which he had discharged these high functions, acquiring a just re-' 
nown for himself, and honor and glory for his native state — the envy and hostility with which the aris-- 
tocracy had pursued him, from his first and humblest effai-ts, to the last and crowning act of infamy and 

malice on their part in his rejection by the casting vote of an aristocratic personal and political riVal 

the double blow which was thus aimed at the President of the United States, in this assault upon his 
friend, and upon a leading and successful measure of his administration, and at the State of New-York,- 
thi'ough a citizen who has no superior in her afi'ections, and for whom on this occasion, she will speak with 
a tone that will vindicate her honor, and sustain her favorite son. 

Messrs. Edmoivds and Foster, of the Senate, and Mr. Otis, of the Assembly, also addressed the 
meeting, pertinently and eloquently. 

The resolutions were then unanimously adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Edmonds, it was resolved, that the resolutioits relative to the rejection of the' 
nomination of the Hon. Martin Van Bi-rkn besigned bytli* rc-publirian memter* of the Legislature ,. 



and that a committee be appointed to transmit copies thereof to the President of the United States to 
Mr. Van Buren and to the Senators and Representatives of this State in the congr^ of the u' S 
Thereupon, the chairman appointed the committee, as follows:— ^""grebt, oi me u. &. 

Messrs. Tallmadge Armstrong, Beardsley, Hubbard and Edmonds, of the Senate- and Messrs Liv 
;h?As"'eSS;!"' '''''''''' ^^'"'' ^''^''' '''''''''''''' '^''^''' «"S'^^«"' Wm-£>n and SeymouJ^. ol 



OF THE SENATE. 

First District. 
STEPHEN ALLEN, 
ALPHEUS SHERMAN, 
JONATHAN S. CONKLIN, 
HARMAN B. CROPSEY. 

Second District. 
SAMUEL REXFORD, 
NATHANIEL P.TALLMADCE, 
DAVID M. WESTCOTT, 
ALLAN MACDONALD. 

Third District. 
LEWIS EATON, 
WILLIAM DIETZ, 
HERMAN I. QUACKENBOSS, 
JOHN W. EDMONDS. 

Fourth District. 
JOHN McLEAN, Jr. 
ISAAC GERE, 
WILLIAM I. DODGE, 
JOSIAH FISK. 

Fifth District. 
ALVIN BRONSON. 
HENRY A FOSTER, 
ROBERT LANSING. 

Sixth District. 
JOHN F. HUBBARD, 
LEVI BEARDSLEY, 
JOHN G. M' DO WELL. 

Seventh District. 
THOMAS ARMSTRONG. 
JEHIEL H. HALSEY. 

OF THE ASSEMBLY. 

Albany county. 
WILLIAM SEYMOUR, 
PHILIP LENNEBECKER, 
ABIJAH C. DISBROW. 

Cayuga co. 
GEORGE II. BRINKERHOFF, 
JOHN W. SAWYER, 
JOHN BEARDSLEY, 
GEORGE S. TILFORD. 

Columbia co. 
LEONARD W. TEN BROECK, 
MEDAD BUTLER, 
TOBIAS L. HOGEBOOM. 

Cortland co. 
ANDREW DICKSON, 
JONATHAN L. WOODS. 

Delaioare co. 
JAMES HUGHSTON, 
JAMES COULTER. 

Dutchess CO. 
ROBERT COFFIN, 
ELI HAMBLIN, 
MICHAEL S. MARTIN, 
ISRAEL SHADBOLT. 



Essex CO. 
ISAAC VANDERWARKER. 

Fratiklin co. 
JAMES B. SPENCER. 

Greene co. 
DUMAH TUTTLE, 
ERASTUS HAMILTON. 

Herkimer co. 
WILLIAM C. GRAIN, 
DAVID THORP, 
DANIEL DYGERT. 

Jefferson co. 
WILLIAM H. ANGEL, 
PHILIP MAXVVELL, 
NATHAN STRONG. 

agings CO. 
COE S. DOWNING. 

Lewis CO. 
ANDREW W. DOIG. 

Montgomery co. 
PETER WOOD, 
SILAS PHILIPS, 
JACOB VAN ARNUM. 

New-York co. 
SILAS M. STILWELL, 
PHILIP E. MILLEDOLER, 
MORDECAI MYERS, 

MYNDERT VAN SCHAICK, 
CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON, 
JAMES MORGAN, 
JUDAH HAMMOND, 
GIDEON OSTRANDER, 
ISAAC L. VARIAN, 
JOHN M'KEON, 
NATHAN T. ARNOLD. 

Oneida co. 
DANIEL TWITCHELL, 
DAVID MOULTON, 
LEMUEL HOUGH, 
NATHANIEL FITCH, 
RUTGER B. MILLER. 

Onondaga co. 
ELISHA LITCHFIELD, 
ELIJAH W. CURTIS, 
MILES W. BENNETT, 
ICHABOD ROSS. 

Orange co. 
ISAAC R. VAN DUZER, 
CHARLES WINFIELD, 
JOHN BARKER. 

Osivego CO. 
AVERY SKINNER. 

Otsego CO. 
AM AS A THOMPSOxV, 
GILBERT CONE, 
WILLIAM KIRBY, 
SAMUEL COLWELL. 



Putnam co. 
REUBEN D. BARNUM. 

Rensselae7- CO. 
JOHN C. KEMBLE, 
NICHOLAS M. MASTERS. 
HOSEA BENNETT 
HENRY J. GENET. 

Richmond co. 
JACOB MERCEREAU. 

Rockland co. 
ISAAC I. BLAU VELT. 

Schenectady co. 
ABRAHAM DORN. 

Saratoga co. 
ORAN G. OTIS, 
JAMES BRISBIN, Jr. 
EBENEZER COUCH. 

St. DaiV7~ence co. 
WILLIAM ALLEN, 
EDWIN DODGE. 

Schoharie co. 
ALEXANDER CROOKSHANK. 

Seneca co. 
REUBEN D. DODGE, 
ERASTUS WOODWORTH. 

Steuben co. 
EDWARD HOWELL, 
JOHN M'BURNEY. 

Suffolk CO. 
JOHN M. WILLIAMSON, 
SAMUEL L'HOMMEDIEU, Jr. 

Tioga CO. 
NATHANIEL SMITH, 
JOEL TALLMADGE, Jr. 

Tompkins co. 
HORACE MACK, 
JOHN JAMES SPEED, Jr. 

Ulster CO. 
I-EONARD HARDENBERtiH. 
HEMAN LANDON. 

Warren co. 
ALLEN ANDERSON. 

JVashington co. 
ISAAC W. BISHOP. 

IVayne co. 
AMBROSE SALISBURY, 
JAMES HUMESTON. 

Westchester co. 
ISRAEL H. WATSON. 

Yates CO. 
AARON REMER. 



CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON, 
EDWARD HOWELL, 



EDWARD p. LIVINGSTON, Chairman. 



Secretaries. 



REMARKS OF Hon. N. P. TALLMADGE, 



In the Republican Legislative Meeting, on moving the adoption of the resolutions 
expressing the sentiments of the representatives of the Democracy of Nevv^-York, 
in relation to the rejection of Mr. VAN BUREN'S nomination. 



Mr. President: The resolutions which I have had 
the honor to submit for the consideration of this 
meeting, but faintly express the indignant feelings 
which pervade this whole community. The rejec- 
tion, by the Senate of the U. S. of Maktijv Van 
BuREN, as Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Brit- 
ain, is an event unparalleled in the history of our go- 
vernment. Wherever the news has reached, the 
public indignation has been manifested, by the spoH- 
taneous assemblage of the people, who have pro- 
nounced, in the severest terms their judgment of 
condemnation upon the authors of this daring out- 
rage. These manifestations of public sentiment, on 
this subject, will continue to be made, as the infor- 
mation spreads through this widely extended state. 

Amidst these demonsti-ations of the people's will, 
we, their representatives, cannot fail to respond to 
the popular voice, and to express our sentiments at 
tlais unequalled insult offered to the honor of our 
state. In doing this, let us not be embarrassed by 
the measured language in which they shall be con- 
veyed. Those who have had neither regard for their 
country, nor respect for themselves, can claim from 
us no other language than that which is best suited 
to the occasion. The people o( this State and of this 
Union have heretofore looked with becoming reve- 
rence on the Senate of the U. S. — they have view- 
ed it as the most dignifiod body under the govern- 
ment. By its recent transactions, it has descended 
from that high elevation. It is degraded in the eyes 

of the nation, and the nation in the eves of the 

world. When men deliberately convert the senate 
chamber into an arena, and themselves consent to 
become political gladiators, it is high time that the 
people knew the character of their servants, and the 
manner in which tlie public interests are sacrificed 
to promote their own private views. It is high time 
that the unholy combination to disgrace or destroy a 
distinguished individual, should be exposed to pub- 
lic scorn and detestation — and that the hypocritical 
pretence of a nice and sensitive regard for the ho- 
nor of the nation, should g'.ve place to the real cau- 
ses of the outrage, an unnatural alliance for the pro- 
motion of personal and political objects. 

Who, let me ask, is this distinguished individual 
whf)m these political aspirants have thus attempted 
to disgrace and destroy.' He is well known to us 
all. The people of this state are familiar with his 
name, and with the services he has rendered to his 
country. His reputation is dear to them, and they 
will be the last to suffer it to be tarnished by foul 
aspersions, however high or however low their ori- 
gin. He is Uterally one of the people. He is not 
of that class, which, in the early stages of the gov- 
ernment, were denominated "the rich and well 
born" — an odious distinction, which has been at- 
tempted to be preserved to the present day, and 
which has often been claimed, with an air of tri- 
umph, on the part of those who have looked with a 
jealous eye on the success of favored individuals 
whom the people have delighted to honor. No sir: 
he is of humble origin. He is the artificer of his 
own fortunes; and often, in the course of his politi- 



cal career, has he been reproached with the humility 
of his birth. The pride of wealth and of family 
distinction has sneered at his advancement, and has 
attempted to frown into retirement the man, whose 
native energies rose superior to its own exertions. 
The attempt has been in vain. It was contrary to 
the spirit of our free institutions. In this country, 
the road to promotion, in the honors of the govern- 
ment, is open to all. Every individual is free to 
travel it — no ettbrts of the aristocracy shall be suf- 
fered to impede his progress. We all have the 
deepest interest in preserving this principle invio- 
late, and of cherishing the fair fame of those who 
have, unaided and alone, worked their own way to 
distinction. Once suffer such a proscription, and 
the youthful aspirations of our own children 
may hereafter be stilled by this overgrown and over- 
bearing asistocracy. As we value the future wel- 
fare and success of our own sons in life, let us rally 
round the man who has been the pioneer in the peo- 
ple's cause, and teach the enemies of equal rights, 

that 

" Honor and shame from no condition rise ; 

" Act well your part, tliere all the honor lies " 
What, sir, is the history of this persecuted states- 
man? When he attained to manhood, he was found 
engaged in the arduous duties of an honorable pro- 
fession, and successfully combatting, with veterans 
at the bar, for those honors and distinctions which 
are the results of unwea^Ted industry and persever- 
ance, and the rewards of talent and genius. His 
brilliant efforts soon acquired for him a reputation 
which placed him beyond the reach even of envy,and 
advanced him to tlie high and honorable station of 
Attorney General of this state. He discharged the 
duties of this station with equal credit to himself and 
to the government. No man madt farther progress 
in legal attainments. The late Mr. Henry, who 
held the highest rank in his profession, was proud to 
call him his friend, and to accord to him an equal 
standing with himself, amongst that host of giant 
minds by which the Bench and the Bar were then 

adorned. 

The war in 1812, between the United States and 
Great Britain, found him in the senate of this state. 
It was here that his talents shone most conspicuous. 
Beset by foes without and enemies within, the coun- 
try presented to the eye of the patiiot a most gloomy 
prospect. Unaided, or but partially aided, by the 
general government, we were called upon to pro- 
vide the means to repel the invader, both by sea and 
by land. The patriotic Tompkins was then at the 
head of this state; and with an eye that never slept 
and a zeal that never tired, he devoted himself to 
the service of his country. No man rendered him 
more efficient aid than Mr. Van Buren. In yonder 
senate chamber, his eloquence was often heard in 
favor of providing means and of granting supplies to 
carry on the war— to feed and clothe our half starved 
and half clad soldiery; while some of his present 
persecutors were openly rejoicing at the defeat of 
our arms, and secretly imploring success on those of 
the e^emy. 



After tlio close of the war, and when peace was 
once more restored to our distracted countiy, you at 
length see him in the convention to revise the 
Constitution. Here he was again surrounded by 
the collected wisdom and talent of tlie state — a con- 
stellation of genius, in which none appeared more 
brilliant than himself Here it was, that he contended 
against the aristocracy of the land, in favor of the 
people in the extension of the right of suffrage. — 
Here it was, that, with others of the democratic 
school, he prevailed over those who were unwilling 
to enti-ust more power to the people, and happily 
established the principle that in a government like 
ours, the people are capable of governing them- 
selves. 

We next behold him in the Senate of the United 
States, that dignified body, which was adorned by 
his presence, and which has been degraded in his 
absence. Here he scarcely found an equal, and ac- 
knowledged no sunerior. No man discussed with 
more ability the important subjects that came be- 
fore them. With a thorough knovdedge of the his- 
tory of the government, and its various relations, he 
grasped all matters with a force and comprehension, 
which astonished, whilst it commanded the admira- 
tion of all who witnessed his giant efibrts. His 
speech on the Judiciary will be remembered as long 
as the judicial department of the government shall 
exist, and his splendid effort in favor of the survi- 
ving officers and soldiers of the Revolution will not 
be forgotteen as long as the Almightv spares the 
honored remnant of that heroic race", and whilst 
tlieir descendants cherish the principles of their im- 
mortal sires. Here, he maintained the true princi- 
ples of the constitution, and the long established 
practice of the government, to permit the President 
to choose his own Cabinet—his confidential advi- 
sers—and to select his own agents — the foreign 
ministers — to conduct our negociations at foreign 
courts — and tohold him rcs'i,„iisible forthe acts of 
the administration. It was at this period that the 
nomination of Henry Clay, by President Adams 
came before the Senate for their consideration. Mr. 
Clay secured Mr. Adams's election as President, 
when the question came before the House of Re- 
presentatives, of which Mr. Clay was a conspicuous 
member. It was well known throughout the coun- 
try, that they had been bitter rivals during the Pre- 
sidential canvass, and it will not soon be forgotten, 
that during this period, such was their bitterness 
that each threatened to expose the other, and thus 
satisfy the people that neither was worthy of the 
suffrage or confidence of the nation. No sooner 
was the election determined, and ]\Ir. Adams de- 
clared President, than he nominated Mr. Clay, his 
former bitter enemy and rival, to the high and re- 
sponsible office of Secretary of State. It is not for 
me to say, that there was any thing improper in this 
nomination. But it was at the time publiciv alleged, 
and by a great portion of the people believed, that it 
was the result of a corrupt bargain between them. 
Such was the public indignation on the subiect,that 
the Senate of the United "States, and Mr. Van Bu- 
ron in particular, as the most prominent member of 
it, would have been fully justified by the people in 
rejecting that nomination.' But, true to the spirit of 
the constitution and the usage of the government, 
he declined to interpose objections, and voted for 
the confirmation. Mr. Clay is now a member of 
that Senate, and is one of that desperate triumvirate 
who caused Mr. Van Eurcn's rejection! 

From this high and exalted station, rendered still 
higher and more exalted by his integrity and his 
talents, Mr. Van Buren was called by the democra- 



cy of New- York to preside, as chief magistrate, overf 
the destinies of his native state." His execu- 
tive career was short but brilliant. He rose to that 
eminence, soon after the setting of that splendid lu- 
minary that preceded him, and was surrounded by 
the light that still lingered on his path. None but 
talents of the highest order could have been brought 
into such palpable comparison, without suffering by 
the contrast. But, it is no disparagement to his dis- 
tinguished predecessor to say, that Mr. Van Buren 
fully sustained the high character of the station, 
which his genius and attainments had imparted to it. 
From this place he was soon called by gen. Jack- 
son, on assuming the administration of the general 
government, to the honorable and responsible office 
of Secretary of State. But he left the impress of 
his genius upon our local institutions, and gave to 
our banking system a safety and s^urity which can- 
not but be felt by generations yet to come. It was 
at the seat of the national government, in his new 
situation, that he was destined to add to a reputation 
already beyond the reach of envy or of rival ambi- 
tion. He was now seen moving in a more extended 
sphere. He seemed to grasp, as by intuition, the 
whole range, both of the domestic and foreign rela- 
tions of the country; and it may with trutlr be said, 
that, from the days of Jefferson to the present time, 
tlie arduous duties of that department were never 
discharged with more distinguished ability than by 
him. Our foreign negotiations, which had lingered 
and languished under the preceding administration, 
were revived and invigorated by the " master 
spirit" which now directed, under the guidance of 
an upright and single-minded President, the affairs 
ol'the nation. That miserable system of diplomacy, 
the offspring of intrigue and corruption in foreign 
courts, now gave place to plain and manly dealing. 
That which others had attempted to accomplish by 
indirection, was now accomplished by proceeding di- 
rectly to the object in view. The claims of our citi- 
zens on foreign Kovernments had, before this, been 
suffered to linger along till those citizens had almost 
relinquished, in despair, the hope of ever bringing 
them to a successful termination. No sooner did 
he assume the direction of them, than their hopes 
revived, and in a short period, they had tire proud 
satisfaction to see their rights asserted and their 
claims allowed in a manner surpassing their most 
sanguine expectations. The prompt settlement of 
our differences with Denmark and Brazil evinces 
the energy which had thus been infused into the 
state department. France too, that had so long 
withstood our demands for redress, for spoliations 
on our commerce under another dynasty, now 
yielded to the reasonableness of our claims, when 
presented in the plain and simple garb of truth and 
justice. The amount which our government ob- 
tained far exceeded the hopes of the claimants them- 
selves, and far exceeded the amount at which our 
minister at the French court, under the preceding 
administration, had been authorised to settle. Un- 
der Mr. Van Buren's auspices too, a treaty with tlie 
Sublime Porte has been concluded, by which our 
commerce is extended to places where it never 
reached before. The American flag, which had 
been fanned by every breeze in almost every sea, 
is now proudly waving in ports where it was previ- 
ously unknovs'n. Our vessels now float on the sea 
of Marmora, and spread their broad canvass on the 
dark waters of the Euxine. 

Not toweary you, sir, with the repetition of what is 
well known to all who hear me, I pass over many 
questions between us and foreign governments, 
which received the prompt attention of the Secreta*- 



ry, and the President under whom he acted, and 
which wero adjusted during his continuance in of- 
fice, or which were in a successful train of adjust- 
ment. 

I come, now, sir, to our relations with Great 
Britain, in reference to which, his instructions to 
Mr. McLane, our late minister at the court of St. 
James, have been called in question; and have been 
made the pretended groundwork for his rejection. — 
For years, Messrs. Adams and Clay had been en- 
deavoring to secure the trade of the West Indies; 
but, by their. over-management and diplomatic arts, 
they had utterly failed to accomplish this great ob- 
ject, so important to the commercial interests of the 
country. They had superciliously refused fair and 
honorable propositions from the British government. 
And it was not until that government, disgusted 
with their chicanery, declined all farther negotia- 
tion, that they were compelled to abandon their vain 
pretensions, and humbly ask the very privileges 
which had once been offered and declined. Our 
late minister, Mr. Gallatin, was instructed by Mr. 
Clay, then secretary of state, to accede to the for- 
mer proposition of the British government. But, 
that government, tired of such a vascillating, time- 
serving policy, rigidly adhered to its former stand, 
and would not even entertain the negotiation. It 
was for this, among other reasons, that the prece- 
ding administration was hurled from power by an in- 
dignant people, and gen. Jackson placed at tlie head 
of the government. On entering upon the duties of 
liis office, Mr. Van Buren forthwith set about reco- 
vering this important branch of trade, v^'hich had 
been lost by Mr. Clay. With characteristic frank- 
ness, he met the question. He commenced the ne- 
gotiation in a plain business-like manner, as if he 
meant what he said, and said what he meant. 
Unacquainted with the dissimulation, and despising 
the hypocrisy, of courts, like an honest farmer, in 
making a bargain, he came right to the point. In 
respectful and proper terms, he told the British gov- 
ernment what we wished and what we would do. 
In his instructions to Mr. M'Lane, he said, it was 
not necessary to " enter into a particular defence of 
the omission on the part of the U. S. , seasonably to 
embrace the offer of the direct trade made by Great 
Britain in the year 1825. and to which allusion has 
so frequently been made. Whether it be a subject 
more of regret or of censure, it ought to be enough 
that the claims advanced in justification of it J«ve 
since been abandoned by those who made them — 
have received no sanction from the people of the U. 
S. ; and that they are not now revived. " What else 
could he say? What less could he say, to satisfy 
that government, that, when we were asking them 
to open a negotiation which our own folly had clos- 
ed, we did not intend again to trifre with them as 
they had been trifled with before .' This frankness 
on our part was met by a corresponding frankness 
on theirs. The result is known to the American 
people. The country has been vastly benefitted by 
the success of this negotiation. The senate of the 
U. States has confirmed the arrangement by which 
these benefits were obtained — has confirmed the 
nomination of Mr. M'Lane, as Secretary of the 
Treasury, who was the negotiator in this matter, 
with discretionary power, under the instructions of 
Mr. Van Buren; and yet, unparalleled injustice! 
has rejected the nomination of the man, through 
whose instrumentality, and under whose direction, 
these advantages were secured! 

But, we are told the wounded honor of the coun- 
try required this sacrifice — And garbled extracts 
from Mr. Van Buren's instructions, and mis-state- 



ment of facts, are put forth to the community, as a 
justification of this outrage upon tlie feelings of the 
people, and upon the character of the nation. If 
time permitted me to go into a detailed history of this 
whole transaction, I would tear from these vain pre- 
tenders the " tattered mantle of hj"pocrisy" that has 
been interposed to cover them. They talk of the 
wounded honor of the country! How comes it, 
that this nice sense of national honor has just 
been roused ? Where has it slept for two years past .' 
In 1830, a copy of these very instructions, about 
wliich so much is said, together with the communi- 
cations which passed between Mr. McLane and the 
British government, was submitted to both houses 
of congress — this very Senate then added its sanc- 
tion to these instiuctions, by passing an act autho- 
rising the President to accept the " trade" and to 
open the ports, pursuant to the terms offered by the 
instructions, and in the manner in which they had 
been executed. Why did not these patriots then 
speak out? Why slumber upon this humiliating at- 
tempt, "to propitiate," in the language of Mr. 
Clay, "the favor of the British King"? Where 
then was Mr. Webster's sense of "duty"? — 
Why did he not then set upon these instruc- 
tions, his "mark of disapprobation"? No, Sir, 
it is an after thought — disguise it as they will, they 
cannot give it credence. They did not then antici- 
pate, that Mr. Van Buren would retire from the De- 
partment of State, and accept a mission to that 
court, where his fame had already pieceded him. — 
They did not then anticipate the opportunity to 
wreck their vengeance on a man, whose only fault 
was, the possession of talents inferior to none, and 
tlie prospect of promotion superior to all. Regard- 
less alike of private reputation, and of public inter- 
est, they have recalled a minister from a foreign 
court, vt^hose character is above reproach, and whose 
life has been devoted to the public service — whose 
mission was one of the most delicate and responsi- 
ble nature — and the interruption of which may e- 
ventually lead to the most embarrassing relations be- 
tween the two governments. I mean the i-ight of 
search and the impressment ofseaiyien. This claim 
on the part of Great Britain was one of the causes of 
the late war. And although in that contest, the na- 
tional honor was siistained both on the ocean and 
the land, yet this cause of difference was left unset- 
tled by the negotiators at Ghent, and still remains 
an open question, either for amicable adjustment, or 
for future controversy. The President, desirous of 
establishing the most pacific relations with Great 
Britain, and of fixing the peace of this country on 
the firmest basis, selected Mr. Van Buren as the 
man, of ail t thers, the best calculated to effect this 
grand object. No one possessed, in a more eminent 
degree, the qualifications for such a place. No one 
knew better how to broach so delicate a subject. — 
His negotiation, however, is broken off by an act of 
the most aggravated and wanton character, and the 
great and paramount interests of the nation put in 
jeopardy, to gratify the personal malice of political 
rivals. 

Who, let me ask, are the leaders of this crusade 
against private reputation and public honor? They 
are men, differing on other subjects of the deepest 
interest to the country, and as wide asunder as the 
poles. On the other hand is Mr. Clay, maintaining 
doctrines in relation to the protection of domestic in- 
dustry, wholly at war with \i\e nullifying diocXnnes 
of Mr. Calhoun. And yet these men, themselves 
aspirants for the highest office in the gift of the peo- 
ple, are found uniting to destroy the private as well 
as political standing of one, whom they both hale 



8 



and fear. Whilst these gentlemen have thus leagued 
together to destroy a common rival, there is yet an- 
other party to the deed, of more sagacity than either, 
who intends by " one fell swoop" to destroy them 
all: I allude to a gentleman " from down east" — 
this " second Daniel that has come to judgment:" 
the advocate and apologist of the Hartford Conven- 
tion: the violent opponent of the late war: and one 
of those who thought it " unbecoming a moral and 
religious people" to celebrate our victories. He 
too, is looking to the succession, after the expiration 
of the next Presidential term. How important to 
him then, that these rival candidates should be dis- 
posed of? By this act, he hoped to disgrace Van 
Buren, M«eT«/) Clay, and nullify Calhoun. With 
regard to the two latter, he has been successful — 
but the disgrace intended for the former, has fallen 
on himself— and thus ends the most unprincipled 
combination ever known in the histoiy of this govern- 
ment. 

But, sir, this stab was not aimed at Mr. Van 
Buren alone. It was intended to reach the Presi- 
dent himself, through one high in his confidence.— 
It was intended to embarrass and defeat one of the 
most important measures of his administration — a 



measure, the success of which would have thrown 
for into the shade the temporising policy of his pre- 
decessor, and would have added a civic wreath to 
that brow, already crowned with military glory. — 
Nay, it did not stop here. It was a blow aimed at 
New- York. Yes, sir, at the " great state" — the 
" empire state" — an attempt to prostrate the democ- 
racy of the state, by prostrating her favorite son. — 
Let us then, as the representatives of that democra- 
cy, speak in a language not to be misunderstood. — 
Let the voice of New York be heard afar — let us 
rally all as one man — let all minor differences be 
hushed in one mighty effort to sustain her dignity, 
and vindicate her insulted honor — let her voice be 
heard from Maine to Louisiana: let it echo along 
the valley ot the Mississippi and the Missouri. By 
this perversion of constitutional power, our dearest 
rights, nay, our very liberties are invaded. Let us 
then rally round the standard of democracy, and say 
with the bi-ave Gustavus Vasa, 

" Here will we lake our stand '. 
" Here, on tlie brink, the very verge of liberty : 
" Allhougli coutealion rise upon the clouds, 
" Mix heaven with earth, and roll the ruin onward, 
" Here will we fix, and breast us to the shock." 



GREAT PUBLIC MEETING IN THE CITY OF ALBANY. 



At the request of the Democratic Republican General Committee, together with the call of several of 
our most distinguished fellow-citizens, one of the largest and most respectable meetmgs ever before wit- 
nessed in this city, was held in the new City-Hall, on Saturday evening, the 4th Feb. mst. 

The meeting was called to order bv the Hon. Nathan Sanford, who nominated the venerable 
SIMEON DE WlTT, Survevor-General of this State, as chairman of the meeting. Anthony Blanch- 
ard, esq. nominated JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH and PETER WENDELL, as secretaries to the 

™S^4.MUEL Cheever, esq. briefly and pertinently explained the object of the meeting, and moved the 
appointment ofa committee of seven, to prepare and otler suitable resolutions tor the consideration of 
the meetine. Whereupon the chairman nominated the following committee:— Benjamin Knower, 
Isaac H. Bogart, Edward Livingston, Benj. Van Benthuisen, Barent P. Staats, Samuel Cheever, An- 

*^Tfter Tshort period, the committee returned and reported, through Mr. Edward Livingston, the fol- 
lowing resolutions: — 

The Republican citizens of Albanv, feeling themselves peculiarly called upon to ex-press their senti- 
ments in re^^ard to the course taken"by the majority of the Senate of the United States, upon the nomi- 
nation of their fellow-citizen, MARTIN VAN BUREN, as Minister to the British Court— and havmg 
considered the same, do resolve as follows: ,.,..,, , . . . 

1 That we deem the rejection of that nomination, an act unjust to the individual concerned, injuri- 
ous to the best interests of the country, and particularly insulting to the people of New- Y ork. 

2 That when we consider the persons by whom, and the manner in wliich that measure was accona- 
plisiied, we cannot resist the conclusion, that it wa5 instigated by a desire to gratify personal and politi- 
cal enmity; to wound the feelings of the President; to defeat the great objects of the mission to Great 
Britain; and to impair the influence of New- York in the councils of the nation. . , at 

3 That the reason assigned for this unprecedented step, to wit, that the instructions given by Mr. 
Van Buren, a.s Secretarv of State, in relation to the West India trade, were derogatory to the honor of 
the nation,— is not, in the opinion of tliis meeting, well founded in point of fact, nor can we believe 
that it constituted the real motive of the measure referred to. ,,,.,, , ■ ■ ^ .■ ■ „_„„♦ 

4 That after the full discussion had upon the acts and omissions of the late adminisfa-ation in respect 
to that trade, and in view of the decision made thereon by the American people, the Secretary ot 
State was fully warranted in endeavoring to rescue the United States from the consequences of those 
acts and omissions, on the ground assumed by him in those instructions. . 

5 That in the judgment of this meeting, it is more dishonorable to persist in erroneous pretensions, 
than to retract them; and that the frankness which characterized the instructions referred to, w^as not 
only proper in itself, but eminently calculated to effect the important ends in reference to which they 
were framed, and which were ultimately secured upon terms honorable to both nations, and highly ben- 
eficial to ourselves. , •»*:«<, 

6 That our confidence in the patriotism, integrity and talents of the statesman by whose mstructions 
that result was principallv produced, is undiminished; and that whilst we deeply lament the national 
degradation involved in Ihe recent display of partv rancor and personal hostility towards him, w« conn- 



9 

dently rely on the intelligence and virtue of the American people, and especially of the people of New- 

York, for "his defence and vindication. ... , . ^i. r. j ^ r ^.i tt •♦ a 

Resolved, That copies of the Ibregoing resolutions be transmitted to the President of the United 

States and the Hon. Martin Van Buren, and that a committee of thirteen persons be appointed for that 



Dix, James King, James M'Kown, Recorder of the city, Benj. 



purpose. 

After which. Adjutant Gen 
F. Butler and John L. Viele, addressed the meeting. 

The resolutions were then adopted with acclamation and immense cheering 

John I. Burton, esq. then moved that a committee be appointed to transmit copies of the proceedings 
of this meeting to the President of the United States, and to the Hon. JVIartin Van Buren. 
the chairman nominated the following committee, viz: Silas Wright, jr., Erastus Corning, 
Peter Gansevoort, James King, James Porter, James Campbell, jr. Samuel S. Fowler, 
Henry, Alexander Marvin, John I. Burton, Garret Gates, Albert Ryckman. 

Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting, with such sketches of the addresses as can be obtain- 
ed, be published in the Albany Argus and in pamphlets. 

Resolved, That these proceedings be signed by the chairman and secretaries. 

SIMEON DE WITT, Ch'n. 



Whereupon 
Wm. Gould, 
Peter Seton 



JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH,) o_vv^ 
PETER WENDELL, > ^ ^ 



REMARKS OF Gen. DIX. 



Mr. Chairman: I am sure I do not mistake the 
feelings of this audience, when I say that the rejec- 
tion ot Mr. Van Buren by the Senate of tlie Uni- 
ted States, as Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Bri- 
tain, has excited among us a universal sentiment ot 
indignation on account of the personal outrage visi- 
ted upon that distinguished citizen, and of shame, fur 
the violated dignity of the country. Knowing as I do 
the deep sensibility which pervades all classes of citi- 
zens,excepting those whose prejudices or hostility are 
too powerful for their sense of justice, I should have 
been better satisfied il the responsibiUty of opening 
this meeting had fallen to other and abler hands. — 
Participating, however, as I do strongly, in the gen- 
eral sentiment, I did not feel at liberty to decline the 
task; and in undertaking it, I only hope that I may 
be followed by others wlio will supply what I may 
omit. Others, at least there are, who, from longer 
and more laniiliar intercourse with Mr. Van Buren, 
have a better claim than myself to bear testimony 
to the upriglitness and purity of his private life. Of 
his public acts and character, no citizen of this state 
— no citizen of the United Slates— however remote 
from the theatre of his usefulness, can be ignorant. 
His services, those particularly which were render- 
ed while he was Secretary of State, are emphatical- 
ly the propel ty of the country; and if it were in the 
power of his political adversaries toobhterate in the 
public mind, the sense of their value, it is too late, 
thank Heaven! to turn aside the rich current of 
benefits which has llowed from them. It will de- 
tract from th.e just claims of no individual to say that 
Mr. Van Buren was, in the late cabinet of gen. 
Jackson, his most able and inrtuential adviser: to 
him are in no inconsiderable degree to be ascribed 
that wise, provident and successfal policy in our ne- 
gotiations with foreign countries, under which the 
country has risen, and is still continuing to rise in 
the scale of prosperity; and nothing but an over- 
whelming sense of his superiority, reflected from all 
sides in the testimonials of public opinion, could 
have arrayed against him a combination of political 
opponents, numbering as many creeds as men, dif- 
fering with each other on almost every leading ques- 
tion of public policy, at war with each other in their 
personal relations — united in nothing but a common 
interest to overthrow a dangerous rival in the confi- 
dence of the people. 



It is well known that this is the first instance lA 
the history of the government, in which the nomi- 
nation of a minister by the President has been re- 
jected by the Senate, after entering on tire du- 
ties of his office. The President is charged by 
the constitution with the management of our rela- 
tions with foreign States; and it has always been 
deemed proper Ihat he should, as the responsible 
person, have the selection of his agents. So novel 
and extraordinary was this case, that it was confi- 
dently expected by many that a removal of the in- 
junct.on of secresy would exliibit suflicient eviden- 
ces of the necessity of making it an exception to 
the general rule. Sir, Ithasexhibitedno such thing: 
it has disclosed nothing of which the public were 
not already apprised— nothing which has not already 
been pronounced upon by the judgment of the peo- 
ple. It is true, we are informed by private letters, 
that imputations derogatory to the moral character 
of Mr. Van Buren, were introduced into the Senate 
— imputations contradicted by the whole tenor of 
his life— imputations sustained by n© proof— disrepu- 
table in their grossness to the individuals who gave 
countenance to them, and insulting, beyond mea- 
sure insulting, to the body to which they were ad- 
dressed. If "they shall ever see the light, they will 
be indignantly resented by all parties, whatever may 
be their political predilections, as an outrage to jus- 
tice and truth. 

Sir, the only reason, either of a public or private 
nature, which is relied on as a justification for re- 
jecting Mr. Van Buren, is the tenor of his instruc- 
tions to Mr. McLane upon the negotiation of the lat- 
ter with Great Br. tain, in relation to the West In- 
dia Trade. For months this reason had been urged 
by the opponents of the administration as a cause for 
adopting that measure; and it had been shown, on 
uur side, to be a ground of opposition not to be main- 
tained. These instructions have been published, 
and in the hands of the people, more than twelve 
months; they have been approved by the public 
judgment: nay, sir, they have been virtually sanc- 
tioned by the senate itself, in the ratification of all 
the arrangements entered into by the two countries 
in pursuance of them; and it may be confidently as- 
serted, that no imputation derogatory to the charac- 
ter of Mr. Van Buren, as a statesman, can be drawn 
[ from them, which is not susceptibl* of a triumphant 



10 



refutation. But as this is the sole ground of his re- 
jection, it will be proper buiefly to enquire into its 
merits. 

There is, perhaps, no subject, which has excited 
more diseussiou during the last six yenrs, than our 
negotiations with Great Britain on the subject of 
our commercial intercourse with her West India 
Colonies. The unexpected interdiction on the part 
of that power in the year 1S26, of all direct commu- 
nication with them, gave to the subject a degree ot 
importance fully equal to the magnitude of the inter- 
ests at stake. It was the constant aim of Mr. Ad- 
ams and ills political friends to make that interdic- 
tion appear as a measure of wanton and unprovoked 
hostiUty to the United States. He had been charg- 
ed with the direction of that negotiation as secretary 
of state from the year 1S17 to 1825; its failure was 
calculated to reflect discredit upon his talents as a 
statesman and diplomatist, and to hivolve in the same 
reproach the character of those who had sustained 
him and given countenance to his measures. The 
only complete defence for them was to set up the 
imputation of hostility on the part of Great Britain. 
There was much in a review ot the previous rela- 
tions of the tft-o countries, which was calculated to 
produce unfriendly impressions with regard to the 
intentions of the "other. On our side there was 
more cause for sensitiveness than on hers. We had 
been for years engaged in angry collisions with her, 
in every one of which she was the aggressor. We 
had finally appealed to asms, and obtained by force 
the redress which had been denied to reason and 
justice. In all this we had done what was becom- 
ing a spirited and determined people. The de- 
cision pronounced by us upon the immediate causes 
which led to an interruption of our intercourse with 
the British West India Colonics in 1826, after full 
consideration, was not less honorable to our justice 
and magnanimity, than our previous course had been 
to our resolution and firmness. A review of the 
history of her colonial regulations proved, that any 
imputation to her of hostility on this point was 
groundless. She had applied to us the same restric- 
tions which she had applied to other countries. In- 
deed, the nature of the case was such as to repel 
such an imputation. In the regulation of their com- 
mercial intercourse, nations are guided by views, 
often narrow and mistaken, of their own interest: 
and in this case, if her colonial policy had been 
framed with a view to impair our interests, she 
could only have reached our prosperity through a 
deeper wound inflicted on her own. But it appear- 
ed that there had been, from the close of tlic revo- 
lutionary war, a gradual course of relaxation of the 
rules, which had governed our commercial inter- 
course with her colonies. At the close of that con- 
test, when our separation from the dominion of Great 
Britam was rendered complete by a formal acknowl- 
edgement of our independence, her attention was 
immediately directed to the regulation of the inter- 
course between her former colonies thus separated 
from her, and those which still acknowledged her 
sovereignty. In efi'ecting this object, the establish- 
ed principles of her colonial system were enforced 
against us as thev were against otlier nations. Ac- 
cordingly the enactments of the British parliament 
resulted in the following restrictions: Certain enu- 
merated articles, the productions of the United 
States, were allowed to be imported into the Bri- 
tish West India Islands in British bottoms. The 
United States could not carry their own produce to 
those islands. Even the enumerated articles allow- 
ed to be imported in her own bottoms, were speci- 
fied by proclamations, which were hmited in their 



duration to a single year. The proclan>ation, as a 
measure was not obligatory on the British King. It 
wa» discretionary with him to renew or wi-thhold 
it. The law only empowered, but did not require, 
him to issue it. 'lire effect of this system was to sub- 
ject owr intercourse with those colonies, to the dis- 
cretion of the King. The system had not even the 
security ol a legislative act, of which the operation 
could only be varied by a concurrence of the three 
branches of the British legislature. 

The first relaxation of this system was by the act 
of 28, Geo. III. ch. 6, by virtue of which the con- 
ditions of our intercourse with the British W. I. 
islands, previously announced by shmual proclama- 
tions, were engi-afted into a standing law. Circuitous 
intercourse between us and those islands was not 
aflected by this statute, but remained subject to the 
same restrictions. The effect of this change was 
to give permanence to a system, which was liable to 
be varied or annulled at the discretion of an individual. 
It was, however, deemed at the time a material point 
by us; and the previous insecurity of the system 
was a subject of communication between the legis- 
lative and executive branches of our government sub- 
sequently to the enactment by the British Pariia- 
ment of the law, which gave it a more fixed and 
settled foundation. [See" Report of the Secretary 
of State of 16" Dec. 179-3, and a similar report of the 
30th of the same month.] Time will not allow me 
to enter in detail into the whole history of that in- 
tercourse: but it will appear that negotiation was 
generally declined by Great Britain, and successive 
relaxations temporary and permanent, were intro- 
duced on her part, and met on ours, by reciprocal 
legislation of the parties; that the refusal of Messrs. 
Adams and Clay to accept highly advantegeous 
terms, under the expectation of obtaining (in what 
manner will be seen) others still more so, forced the 
British Government into the position referred to. — 
It will appear also that a new principle (at all events 
a principle never before avowed) governed our policy 
on tha tquestion while it was under the management 
of Messrs. Clay and Adams. 

It is a remarkable circumstance, that on the 9th 
Feb. 1818 the committee of Foreign Relations in 
the House of Representatives (the first Congress af- 
ter tlie organization of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet) re- 
ported in favor of additional restrictions upon the 
colonial intercourse of Great Britain with us; and, 
in assigning the grounds of tlieir recommendation, 
they referred to a document marked F. which had 
been furnished to them by Mr. Adams as Secretary 
of State. Mr. Adams also referred to it himself in a 
letfe- to Mr. Rush, dated 23d June 1828, while the 
latter was minister to Great Britain, and distinctly 
pointed his attention to it as a guide. The position 
assumed by that paper and sought to be maintained 
by a long and elaborate argument is contained in 
the following query: "Can Great Britain support 
"her West India Colonies in comfort, or even in 
"safety, without supplies from the United States.'" 

to which it is confidently answered, and the 

grounds of the opinion assigned, that "she cannot;" 
and the conclusion is very legitimately drawn that 
we could prescribe our own terms with her. This 
position affords a clue to the whole course of policy 
pursued by Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay on tliat sub- 
ject. Believing that those colonies were dependent 
on an intercourse with us, they were willing to 
gain credit for ability as statesmen and negotiators by 
availing themselves of the necessitif '^f Great Bri- 
tain, and insisting on advantages wh ^^.cy should 
have seen could never be obtained. / ■^ °""" ''= *'^ ' 
policy, cf which that paper was the 



11 



was understood, it became tlie subject of an anima- 
ted discussion in the British Parliament. 

Mr. Huslcisson on the floor of the house of com- 
mons in the year 1825, said he was persuaded an 
impression existed on our part that Great Britaiu had 
yielded that intercourse to necessity, and tnat, as 
her colonies could not subsist without it, we might 
prescribe the conditions under which it should be 
carried on; and he concluded by reconnnending 
counteracting measures. This was the language of 
the man, who of all others in Great Britain had most 
ardently and ably advocated a relaxation of her colo- 
nial restrictions, who was reproached by the monop- 
o'ists with the design of overthrowing the establish- 
ed order of things, and of setting up a system of en- 
tire freedom in commerce. When the most liberal, 
if not the most enlightened statesman in Great Bri- 
tain spoke in language so unequivocal, it is not sur- 
prising that the act of interdiction referred to, was 
resorted to during the following year. That Mr. 
Clay was a party to the course of policy which that 
measure was designed to counteract, is apparent 
from the fact that he was a member of Mr. Adams' 
cabinet for more than a year while it was steadily 
persisted in, and that he had unilbrmly sustained it 
on the floor of Congress. 

Such was the character of the policy, by means 
of which these giants in diplomacy proposed, not to 
gain by reasoning and argument, but to coerce a 
power on friendly terms with us, to concede what 
could only be obtained on the ground of her neces- 
sities. That the gi'ounds on which they had placed 
their demands were in their own estimation untena- 
ble, is apparent from the fact that Mr. Gallatin was 
sent out in the year 1826 with instructions to aban- 
don them and to accede to certain propositions made 
by the British government in the year 1824 — the 
most favorable ever offered for our acceptance — but 
declined until that time, either from a culpable neg- 
lect of the public interests, or, what is more proba- 
ble, an expectation of obtaining greater advantages. 
It is not to be doubted that this change of policy 
was the result of a conviction on their part, at which 
they had however arrived too late, that the posit on 
assumed in document F could not be maintained, 
and that if they would not agree to share with Great 
Britain the trade with her West India colonies on rea- 
sonable termSj she^would find means to dispense 
altogether with our direct agency in supplying ihem. 
If the position were founded in reason and justice, 
it ought not to have been abandoned; if it liad not 
such a foundation, then had Messrs. Clay and Ad- 
ams been insisting for years on concessions which 
could not be obtained ,<ind which we ought not 'o have 
demanded. Mr. Clay says in his apology to the se- 
nate for his vote against Mr. Van Huren,ihat we had, 
during two administrations previous to that of Mr. 
Adams, preterred the same claims. The differ- 
ence between his statement and the fact is, that ■ 
we had previously to Mr. Monroe's administra'ion 
sought as a privil ge (aye, sir, as a privilege — the 
term ruus through the whole history of our negotia- : 
tions on the subject) what Messrs. Clay and Ad ims 
had demanded as a right. The instructions address- i 
ed to previous negotiators were to obtain if they I 
could the privilege of introducing our staples into { 
the British West India markets, on the same terms ■ 
as similar productions of tire British colonies — those | 
framed under the direction of Mr. Adams and Mr. [ 
Clay, to insist on it as a " sine qua non" of a defini- ! 
tive arrangerpeflt. j 

The 5-. ... .: .|ons of the British commissioners con- 
sisted of fiveyafticles, the 1st of which provided that 

r trade ..,, h the open ports of their West India 



and North American colonics, should be continued; 
that all discriminating charges and duties recijrt'ocal- 
ly imposed and levied on the vessels of each nation 
and their cargoes in the ports of the other should be 
abolished; that upon our vessels and upon the goods 
lawfully imported in them, no other or higher duties 
of tonnage or impost should be exacted, than upon 
British vessels and goods imported into those ports 
from any foreign port whatever. The 2nd article 
provided that each party should remove, as soon as 
possible, all additional duties of tonnage in the light 
of foreign tonnage duty, and all additional duties of 
impost in the light of duties on goods imported in 
foreign vessels, and all other discriminating duties 
and charges. The 3rd article provided, that in case 
the proposed agreements should be found to operate 
unequally, either should, on representation of the 
other, examine the matter of complaint, and if found 
to be just, should take such measures to redress the 
grievance as to secure the condition of reciprocity 
contemplated by the parties. The 4th article gua- 
ranteed the extension of any further privileges, 
j which might be granted to any friendly state, either 
I in Europe or America, so as to place the party upon 
I the footmgof the most favored state. The 5th arti- 
I cle provided for the appointment of consuls, &c. — 
I This proposal, besides holding out the prospect of 
I further tacilities, conceded every thing we asked 
j except the right reserved to herself of regulating her 
j tiade between her colonies and herself, and between 
\ one of her colonies and another. The object of this 
reservation, as avowed by Great Britain, \vas toena- 
1 hie her to protect the staples of her own subjects by 
levying impost duties on like productions of aforeign 
country. To surrender this right would have ex- 
cluded the productions of her JVorth American colo- 
nies from her West India Islands. By comparing 
, the facilities above offered for our acceptance, with 
i the condition of our intercourse with the British 
West Indies for several years after the close of the 
revolutionary war, and even after the passage of the 
' act or2S, Geo. III. ch. 6, it will be perceived at a 
; glance that the colonial system had been exceeding- 
I ly relaxed, if it was not even in a gradual course of 
j abandonment I pass over altogether the act of Par- 
liament of lS25,offering certain conditions.in case of 
their acceptance, to all countries; as Mr. Clay saj's 
we never received any official notice of it — and 
place the mismanagement of Messrs. Adams and Clay 
on the grounds above stated. 

The propositions referred to were received a short 
time before they took into their hands the affairs of 
government, but they were not acted on until 1826. 
Mr. -Rufus King was sent out to Great Britain in 
1825 with full instructions on other subjects, but 
without any on this, the most important of all. (See 
Mr. Clay's letter to Mr. Gallatin, 19th June, 1826.) 
Il was not, in fact, until the day, on which this let- 
ter bears date, that any definitive measures were a- 
doptod on this subject. On that day Mr. Gallatin 
was despatched with instructions to waive the de- 
mand, all along made by his employers, of the admis- 
sion of our productions into the British West India 
ports on the same terms as similar productions of her 
North American colonies, and to accede substantial- 
ly to the propositions of the British plenipotentiaries, 
over which they had been dozing nearly two years. 
Before the arrival of Mr. Gallatin in England, an 
order in council was issued, bearing date the 27th 
July, 1826, by which all intercourse between us and 
the British West India islands was interdicted, and 
that government utterly refused to negotiate further 
with the administration of Mr. Adams on the sub- 
ject. The whole course of this negotiation was ex- 



1» 



ceedingly discreditable to those who had conducted 
it. It was, to say the least, an act of the most pal- 
pable impolicy to urge pretensions, the justice ot 
which was at all questionable, at a moment when 
Great Britain, by meeting us on the long avoided 
ground of negotiation, and by materially relaxing her 
restrictions, had given evidences of more liberal 
views in relation to the colonial trade. 

The attempt made on the floor of the senate to di- 
vert from Messrs. Adams and Clay the responsibili- 
ty of adhering for years to a course of measures, 
which they subsequently abandoned, by making it 
appear as a part of the settled policy of the country, 
is as fruitless as every other attempt which has been 
made to defend the united mismanagement of those 
individuals. It was part i.)f the settled policy of the 
country onlv from the time that they successively 
obtained a controlling influence in the public coun- 
cils. And it certainly reports as ill of the shrewd- 
ness as of the equity of the oppositioii, to hold Mr. 
Van Buren responsible for his acts as secretary ol 
state, and to insist on the release of Messrs. Adams 
and Clay for their acts in the same official capacity. 
If the ground of defence assumed in behalf of those 
gentlemen be tenable, then is the reiection of IVIr. 
Van Buren an act of the most jjalpahle injustice. 

Under the circumstances above referred to, gen. 
Jackson became President of the United States; 
and the question immediately arose as to the man- 
ner, in which this long contested subject should be 
disposed of. It had been conceded by the party, 
which elevated gen. Jackson to power— in other 
words, by an overwhelming majority of the people 
of the United Sta'es— that the demands of the pre- 
vious administration ought not to be insisted on. — 
The language of Mi. Webster, though not altogether 
unequivocal, is understood as admittin;j: that this 
subject had been passed on by the public judgment. 
Any other supposition would be altogether erione- 
ous in point of fact, by assuming that it had not been 
generally discussed, and equally false in theory, by 
the iinpliration that it was a subject too abstruse for 
the popular understanding. Those, who are in the 
habit of mingling with the people, will feel the luti- 
lity of auv attempt to make it apyiear as a mutter not , 
examined and passed upon by them. There is no 1 
exaggeration in saying that it was a topic ot discus- ; 
son in every state in the Union, in nine tenths ot 
the pub'ic journals, and at die places of election in 
1828, that the people took a more enlightened view | 
of ihe errors of Ihe previous administration on that ' 
questioi., than those who administered the govern- 
ment had taken of the interests and policy -f the 
countrv; and that it was one of the leading causes 
of the "lesult of the election. The change of men 
and the expected change of measures, were as well 
understood abroad as they were at home: and it '.vas 
well known that the causes of irritation on the part 
of Great Britain were intimately connected with men 
a^ well as measures. The only question was, there- 
fore, in what manner negotiation should be resum- 
ed. Should wc, in case the necessity for it should 
arise, distinctly disavow the acts of the previous ad- 
ministration; or should gen. Jackson, in behalf of 
tlie American people, wrap himself up in the mantle 
of diplomacv, and by a formal hypocrisy, worthy on- 
ly of those who defend it, leave any room by his si- 
lence tj call in question our sentiments on the sub- 
ject. The frank and manly course was adopted; it 
has been sanctioned, and it will be sustained, by the 
people of the United States. The embarrassments 
between the two countries were the fruit of a mis- 
managed and blustering diplomacy on the part of two 
individuals, who had been indignantly spurned by 



the people from the public trusts which had been 
confided to them; and it was due to ourselves to cast 
back the opprobrium upon the source from which it 
came. As little was said by Mr. Van Buren in his 
letter of instruction as should have been said. Mr. 
McLane was authorised, in case it should become 
necessary, to refer to the respective parts taken by 
the present and the preceding administraticns on 
that question. The passages in the letter of instruc- 
tions, upon v\hich the strongest objections are found- 
ed, are those which contain the intimation that the 
acts of tlie preceding administration had be'^n pass- 
ed upon by the American people; that their ,)reten- 
sions were not revived by their successors; and that 
// those acts and prettnsioas aJuiuld be set up by 
the British government us a bar to the adjustment 
of existing diffintlties, it would become the duty 
of Mr. McLane to obviate, as far as possible, by a 
fiank exhibition of the whole ground, the unfavora- 
ble impression produced. It was due to the charac- 
ter of the Ameiican people that this course should 
be adopted; that pretensions already disavowed by 
the people in thejudgment pronounced upon the ad- 
ministration of Mr. Adams, should if necessary, be 
distinctly disavowed in behalf of those, whose lead- 
ing maxim is to ask nothing which is not right, and 
to submit to nothing which is wrong. A different 
course would have been a virtual endorsement of 
errors and abuses, which gen. Jackson was elected 
to correct and reform. The frankness and plain 
dealing of gen. Jackson in all his public acts are in 
harmony with his own character, with the character 
of the people of the United States, and w ith the ge- 
nius, of our political institutions. It has secured from 
foreign states all that we have asked; audit lias ele- 
vated us in the eyes of the world, by exhibiting the 
example of a great nation intioducing into her dis- 
cussions with foreign states the same frt-^tom, and 
acting upon the same maxims, whichshould charac- 
terise and guide the conduct othonorable individuals 
in their personal relations with each other. 

It is worthy of remark that the main position as- 
sumed by the opponents of the administration is, 
that Mr. Van Buren had disgraced the nation by 
opening to the British government the spectacle of 
our party dissentions. Ought not these gentlemen, 
in theirtolicilude for the consequences apprehended 
from sentiments contained in a private letter of in- 
structions, to have retlecfcd upon the conseijuences 
of the public act, by which they proposed to redress 
the injury — condemning, in the face of the whole 
world an important appointment by the President, 
exhibitinij the two highest branches of the govern- 
ment nrnived against eachotht-r, and opening a scene 
unparalleled in our history.' if it was incumbent c n 
them to redress the evil of which they complained, 
it v^ as equally incumbent on them to resort to a cor- 
rective, which should not be pointed with a moral 



far more degrading to us as a nation than that which 
it was intended to counteract. 

The idea presented bv Messrs, Webster and Clay, 
that Gen. Jackson has,' through -Mr. Van Buren's 
instructions, humbled hin.self at the foot of the Brit- 
ish throne, is, to say the least, but a sorry compli- 
ment to the intelligence of the American people.— 
It was, perhaps, not to be expected that gentlemen 
accustomed to relv, for the accomplishment of re- 
sults, upon a skilful use of the weapons of diploma- 
cy, should be capable of doing justice to an hono- 
rable frankness which disdains to employ them. — 
But that Gen. Jackson, erect as he stands before the 
nation and the world, with ail his historical associa- 
tions about him, in an attitude of dignity which only 
one man before him has becii able to assume— that 



la 



such a man should involve his country's reputation 
or his own, by cEisting off the miserable guises of di- 
plomacy, is drawing rather too presumptuously even 
upon the credulity of their own followers. 

The sole ground assigned by the opposition in the 
senate, for rejecting the nomination of Mr. Van Bu- 
ren, is, that he was the author of the instructions to 
Mr. McLane: And this is a ground which, under 
our government, cannot be maintained. With 
us the President is responsible for all measures ema- 
nating from members of his cabinet, esj)ecially those 
connected with our negotiations with foreign states. 
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Van 
Buren is solely responsible for these instructions, his 
defence might safely be rested upon the grounds al- 
ready assigned. But assuming the true state of the 
case, which is, that he has been held responsible as 
an organ of communication with the British Govern- 
ment, and admitting the sentiments contained in his 
instructions to be, as the opposition contend, disre- 
putable to the character of the country, then is the 
distinguished individual at the head of the treasury 
department — placed there by the vol.; of the same 
men who have rejected Mr. Van Buren — equally 
culpable as an immediate organ of communication 
with that government. If he who lends himself to 
the communication of disreputable sentiments, is as 
worthy of condemnation as he who originally utters 
them, Mr. McLane should, upon every principle of 
equal justice, have been included in the sentence 
of condemnation pronounced upon Mr. Van Buren. 
That any distinction was taken between them, is to 
be traced to the different relations under which they 
stand to the authors of Mr. Van Buren's rejection. 

That hostility to Gen. Jackson had an important 
agency in producing this result, is not to be doubted. 
The sentiments intended to be condemned by Mr. 
Van Buren's rejection, are presumed to be the sen- 
timents of the President himself. The nature of 
our government admits of no other supposition. He 
is responsible, and alone responsible, for the acts of 
his administration: and it was doubtless foreseen by 
those who plotted Mr. Van Buren's rejection, that 
the ground on which it was put involved alike the 
character of both. Can any one doubt that it was 
intended to reach, and if possible to impair, thehigh 
standing of the President with the people, by ar- 
raying against him a majority of the Senate, on the 
eve of his re-election.' That this is not an unchari- 
table inference is manifest from the fact, that some 
of the principal characters of the drama are those 
who have, through all vicissitudes, pursued him with 
the most unrelenting bitterness — assailing his public 
and private character with the foulest aspersions; — 
and whose followers have even penetrated, in the ma- 
lignity of their passions, to the very sanctuary of his 
domestic peace. They have fomented dissentions 
in his cabinet, embarrassed his administration by 
thwarting his measures, and they have finally crown- 
ed their hostility by an open denunciation of 
one of his most able, pure and confidential advisers. 
There is not in the history of the country so flagrant 
an instance of injustice and persecution; and so it 



will be pronounced by all disinterested men. It rests 
upon no ground of public expediency; it is defended 
by no consideration of duty or even of po'icy; it 
does not accomplish the poor purpose of its authors, 
of bringing down to their own level an individual 
far above them in all the attributes of public and pri- 
vate virtue. 

The most conspicuous actors in this transaction, 
are those whose sense of honor should have coun- 
selled them to take no part in it. The presiding of- 
ficer of the Senate, and his new coadjutor fiomthe 
West — he who haJ failed successfully to impeach 
the two individuals affiscted by his vote before the 
tribunal of the country, and he whose failures as a 
statesman and diplomatist, had been redeemed by 
the superior powers of his successor, — stand in the 
foreground of the coalition. Into this singular alli- 
ance, a new and equally unnatural auxiliary has en- 
tered. Who could have supposed that he, who has 
been denominated (how appropriately let his course 
on this question testify)" the god-like man," should 
abandon himself to the dominion of the terrestrial 
attributes of his character, by becoming a party to 
so inglorious an enterprise. Mr. Webster, the op- 
ponent of Mr. Van Buren, too, from elevated con- 
siderations of duty and a tender sensibility to the 
public honor! Where, if we rriay presume to en- 
quire, were these elevated considerations and this 
tender sensibility at a time, when the very safety of 
the country was in imminent peril .' Let the histo- 
ry of the country furnish the reply! The gentle- 
man might have been seen declaiming on the door 
of Congress against thejuslice of the war, resisting 
the appropriation of money and men to sustain it, 
and presenting an example of insensibility, the more 
powerful from his acknowledged talents, to all those 
elevated considerations of public duty, to which he 
is now so " tremblingly alive." Nay, sir, so strong 
were his convictions, that he was anxious to trans- 
mit to his children his hostility to the war, as the 
most valuable legacy which he could leave them; 
while his political friends in New England, possibly 
under the inspiration of his eloquence, were burn- 
ing " blue lights" along the coast to conduct the 
forces of the public enemy into the bosom of their 
country.* When such men put on the garb of pub- 
lic virtue, and become delicate of the public hon- 
or, there is surely no injustice in testing their sin- 
cerity by the standard of their past lives. 

Sir, I will no longer occupy the attention of this 
meeting. I feel that I have already too long occu- 
pied it, although much remains to be said. I am 
persuaded that I do not overrate the justice of the 
American people, when I say that there is no refuge 
for the authors of this blot upon the national charac- 
ter; and that time will record their indelible disgrace. 
They will stand before the world, not merely in the 
light of men who have brought dishonor upon the 
character of the country, but in the still more odious 
light of political adversaries, who, in ministering to 
the purposes of injustice and persecution, have ac- 
complished a double object of personal revenge. 
* " Quid domini faciaat, audeut quuui talia three '." 






14 



REMARKS OF Mr. WEBSTER, 

In the U. S. Senate, on the nomination of Mr. Van Buren. 



Mr. President: as it is highly probable that our 
proceedings on this nomination will be published, I 
deem it proper to state shortly the considerations 
which inlluenced my opinion, and will decide my 
vote. 

I regard this as a very important and delicate 
question. It is full of responsibility; and I feel the 
whole force of all that responsibility. While I have 
been in the Senate, I have opposed no nomination of 
the President except for cause; and I have at all 
times thought that such cause should be plain, and 
sufficient; that it should be real and substantial, not 
unfounded or fanciful. 

I have never desired, and do not now desire, to 
encroach, in the slightest degree, on the constitution- 
al powers of the Chief Magistrate of the nation. I 
have heretofore gone far, very far, in assenting to 
nominations which have been submitted to us. I vo- 
ted for the appointment of all the gentlemen who 
composed the first Cabinet; I have opposed no nom- 
ination of a foreign minister; and I have not opposed 
the nominations recently before us, for the re-organ- 
ization of the administration. I have always been 
especially anxious, that in all matters relating to our 
intercourse with other nations, the utmost harmony, 
the greatest unity of purpose, should exist between 
the President and the Senate. I know how much 
of usefulness such harmony and union are calculated 
to produce. 

I am now fully aware, sir, that it is a serious, a 
very serious matter, to vote against the contirmation 
of a Minister to'a foreign court who has already gone 
abroad, and has been received, and accredited, by 
the government to which he is sent. I am aware 
that the rejection of this nomination, and the neces- 
sary recall of the Minister, will be regarded by fo- 
reign states, at the first blush, as not in the highest 
degree favorable to the character of our government. 
I know, moreover; to what iniurious reflections one 
may subject himself, especially in times of party ex- 
citement, by giving a negative vote, on such a nomi- 
nation. But after all, I am placed here to discharge 
a duty. I am not to go through a formality; I am 
to perform a substantial and responsible duty. I am 
to advise the President in matters of appointment. 
This is my constitutional obligation; and I shall per- 
form it conscientiously and fearlessly. I am bound 
to say, then, sir, that for one, I do not advise nor 
consent to this nomination. I do not think it a fit 
and proper nomination; and my reasons are found in 
the letter of instruction, written by Mr. Van Huren, 
on the 20th of July, 1829, to Mj-. McLane,;then go- 
ing to the court of England, as American Minister. 
I think these instructions derogatory, in a high de- 
gree, to the character and honor of the country. I 
think they show a manifest disposition, in the wri- 
ter of them, to establish a distinction between his 
Country and his Party; to place that party above the 
country; to make interest, at a foreign court, for 
that party, rather than for the country; to persuade 
the English Ministry and the English Monarch, that 
they had an interest in maintaining, in the United 
States, the ascendancy of the party to which the 
writer belonged. Thinking thus of the purpose and 
object of these instructions, I cannot be of opinion 
that their author is a proper representative of the 
United States at that court. Therefore, it is, that 
I propose to vote against his nomination. It is the 



first time, I believe, in modern diplomacy, it is cer- 
tainly the first time in our history, in which a min- 
ister to a foreign court has sought to make favor for 
one party at home, against another; or has stooped, 
from being the representative of the whole country, 
to be the representative of a partj'. And as this "is 
tire first instance in our history of any such transac- 
tion, so I intend to do all in my power to make it the 
last. For one, I set my mark of disapprobation up- 
on it;, I contribute my voice and my vote, to make 
it a negative example, to be shunned and avoided by 
all future ministers of the U. States. If, in a delib- 
erate and formal letter of instructions, admonitions 
and directions are given to a minister, and repeated, 
once and again, to urge these mere party considera- 
tions on the foreign government, to what extent, is 
it probable, the writer himself will be disposed to 
ur^e them, in his one thousand opportunities of 
informal intercourse with the agents of that Govern- 
ment? 

I propose, sir, to refer to some particular parts of 
these instructions; but before I do that, allow me to 
state, very generally, the posture of that subject, to 
which those particulars relate. That subject was 
the state of our trade with the British West India 
Colonies. I do not deem it necessary now to go mi- 
nutely into all the history of that trade. The" occa- 
sion does not call for it. All know, that by the Con- 
vention of 1S15, a recipiocity of intercourse was es- 
tablishfd between us and Great Britain. The ships 
of both countries were allowed to pass, to and from 
each other respectively, with the same cargoes, and 
subject to the same duties. But this arrangement 
did not extend to the British West Indies. There, 
our intercourse was cut ofl". Various discriminating 
and retaliatory acts were passed, by England and by 
the United States. Eventually, in the summer of 
1825, the English Parliament passed an act, ottering 
reciprocity, .10 far as the mere currying trade was 
concerned, to all nations, who might choose, within 
one year, to accept that offer. 

Mr. Adams's administration did not accept that 
offer; first, because it was never officially commu- 
nicated to it; secondly, because, only a few months 
before, a negotiation on the very same subject had 
been suspended, with an understanding that it might 
be resumed; and thirdly, because it was very de- 
sirable to arrange the whole matter, if possible, by 
Treaty, in order to secure, if we could, the admis- 
sion of our jiroducts into the British Islands for 
consumption, as well as the admission of our ves- 
sels. This object had been earnestly pursued ever 
since the peace of 1815. It was insisted on, as 
every body knows, through the whole of Mr. Mon- 
roe's administration. He would not treat at all, 
without treating of this object. Ho thought the ex- 
isting state of things better than any arrangement, 
which, while it admitted our vessels into West In- 
dia Ports, still left our productions subject to such 
duties there, that they could not be carried. 

Now, sir, Mr. Adams's administration was not 
the first to take this ground. It only occupied the 
same position which its predecessor had taken. It 
saw no important objects to be gained by changing 
the state of things, unless that change was to admit 
our products into the British West Indies, directly 
from our ports, and not burdened with excessive du- 
ties. The direct trade, by English enactments and 



16 



American enactments, had become closed. No 
British ship came here from the British West Indies. 
No American ship went from us to those places. — 
A circuitous ti-ade took place, through the Islands of 
third Powers; and that circuitous trade was, in many 
respects, not disadvantageous to us. 

In this state of things, sir, Mr. McLane was sent 
to England; and he received his instructions from 
the Secretary of State: In these instructions, and 
in relation to this subject of the Colonial Ti'ade, are 
found the sentiments of which I complain. What 
are they? Let us examine, and see. 

Mr. Van Burcn tells Mr. McLane, " the opportu- 
nities which you have derived from a participation 
in our public councils, as well as othersourccs of in- 
formation, will enable you to speak with confidence 
(as far as you may deem it proper and useful so to 
do) of the respective parts taken by those to whom 
the administration of this government is now commit- 
ted, in relation to the course heretofore pursued up- 
on the subject of the colonial trade." 

Now, this is neither more nor less than saying, 
" you will be able to tell the British minister, when- 
ever you think proper, that you, and I, and the lead- 
ing persons in this administration, have opposed the 
coui'se heretofore pursued by the government and 
the country, on the subject of the colonial trade. Be 
sure to let him know, that, on that subject, we have 
held with Ji^ngland, and nut with our own govern- 
ment.'" Now I ask you, sir, if this be dignified di- 
plomacy.' Is this statesmanship ? Is it patriotism, or 
is it mere party.' Is it a proof of a high regard to the 
honor and renown of the whole country, or is it evi- 
dence of a disposition to make a merit of belonging 
to one of its political divisions.' 

The secretary proceeds: "Their views (that is, 
the views of the present administration) upon that 
point have been submitted to the people of the Uni- 
ted States; and the counsels by which your conduct 
is now directed, are the result of the judgment ex- 
pressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the late 
administration was amenable for its acts." 

Now, sir, in the first place, there is very little 
reason to suppose that the ^rs< part of this paragraph 
is true, in point of fact. I mean that part which in- 
timates that the change of administration was bro't 
about by public disapprobation of Mr. Adams' con- 
duct, respecting the subject of the colonial trade. — 
Possibly, so much was then said, on a subject which 
so few understood, some degree of impression may 
have been produced by it. But be assured, sir, ano- 
ther cause will be found, by future historians, for 
this change; and that cause will be tire popularity of 
a successful soldier, united with a feeling, made to 
be considerably extensive, that the pret'erences of 
the people in his behalf had not been justly regard- 
ed, on a previous occasion. There is, sir, very Uttle 
ground to say that " the only tribunal to which the 
late administration was amenable" has pronounced 
any judgment against it for its conduct on the whole 
subject of the colonial trade. 

But however this may be, the other assertion in 
the paragraph is manifestly quite \ride of the facts. 
Mr. Adams' administration did not bring forward 
this claim. I have stated already that it had been a 
subject, both of negotiation and legislation, through 
the whole eight years of Mr. Monroe's administra- 
tion. This the Secretary knew, or was bound to 
know. Why then does he speak of it as set up by 
the late administration, and afterwards abandoned by 
them, and not now revived? 

But the most humiliating part of the whole fol- 
lows: — " To setup the acts of the late adminisra— 
tion, as the cause of forfeiture of privileges, which 



would otherwise be extended to the people of the 
U. S. would, under existing circumstances, be un- 
just in itself, and could not lail to excite their deep- 
est sensibility." 

So, then, Mr. President, we are reduced, are we, 
to the poor condition, that we see a minister of this 
great republic instructed to argue or to intercede 
with the British minister, lest he should find us to 
have forfeited our frioileges ; and lest these privi- 
leges should no longer be extended to us .' And we 
have forfeited those privileges, by our misbehavior, 
in choosing rulers who thought better of our own 
claim than of the British ! Why, sir, this is patient- 
ly submitting to the domineering tone ot the Brit- 
ish minister, i believe Mr. Hus'kisson — [Mr. Clay 
said, "No, Mr. Canning."] — jMr. Canning, then, 
sir, who told us that all our trade with the West In- 
dies was a boon, granted to us by the indulgence of 
England. The British minister calls it a boon, and 
our minister admits it is aju-ivilege, and hopes that 
his Royal Majesty will be too gracious to decide that 
we have forfeited this privilege, by our misbehavior 
in the choice of our rulers! Sir,' for one, I reject 
all idea of holding any right of trade, or any other 
rights, as a privilege or a boon, from the British 
government, or any other government. 

At the conclusion of the paragraph, the Secreta- 
ry says: " You cannot press this view of the sub- 
ject too earnestly upon the consideration of the Brit- 
ish ministry. It has bearings and relations that 
reach beyond the immediate question under discus- 
sion." 

And, adverting again to the same subject towards 
the close of the despatch, he says, " I will add no- 
thing as to the impropriety of suffering any feelings 
that find their origin in the past pretensions of this 
government, to have an adverse infiuence upon the 
present conduct of Great Britain." 

I ask again, Mr. President, if this be statesman- 
ship? if this be dignity? if this be elevated regard 
for country? Can any man read this whole despatch, 
with candor, and not admit that it is ]ilainly and ma- 
nifestly the writer's object to gain credit with the 
British ministry for the present administration, at 
the expense of the past? 

Lest I should do the Secretary injustice, I will 
read all that I find, in this letter, upon this obnox- 
ious point. These are the paragraphs: 

" Such is the present state of our commercial re- 
lations with the British colonies; and such the steps 
by which we have arrived at it. In reviewing the 
events which have preceded, and more or less con- 
tributed to, a result so muclt to be regretted, there 
will be found three grounds upon which we are most 
assailable; 1st, in our too long and too tenaciously 
resisting the right of Great Britain to impose protec- 
ting duties in her colonies;" 2d, &c. 

'•■ The opportunities which you have derived from 
a participation in our public councils, as well as other 
sources of information, will enable you to speak with 
confidence (as far as you may deem it proper and 
useful so to do) of the respective parts taken by those 
to whom the administration of this government is 
now committed, in relation to the course heretofore 
pursued upon the subject of the colonial trade. — 
Their views upon that point have been submitted to 
the people of the United States; and the counsels by 
which your conduct is now directed are the result 
of the judgment expressed by the only earthly tri- 
bunal to which the late administration was amena- 
ble for its acts. It should be sufficient that the 
claims set up by them, and which caused the inter- 
ruption of the trade in question, have been explicit- 
ly abandoned by those who first asserted them, and 



1« 



are not revived by their successors. If Great Bri- 
tain deems it adverse to her interests to allow us to 
participate in the trade with her colonies, and finds 
nothing in the extension of it toothers to induce her 
to apply the same rule to us, she will, we hope, be 
sensible of the propriety of placing her relusal on 
those grounds. 'J'o set up the acts of the late ad- 
ministration as the cause of forfeiture of privileges 
which would otherw ise be extended to the people of 
the United States, would, under existing circum- 
stances, be unjust in itself, and could not fail to ex- 
cite their deepest sensibility. The tone of feeling 
which a course .so unwise and untenable is calcula- 
ted to produce, would doubtless be greatly aggrava- 
ted by the conciousness that Great Eritcdn has, by 
order in council, opened her colonial ports to Rus- 
sia and France, notwithstunding a similar omission 
on their part to accept the term.-^ offered by the act 
of July, 1825. You cannot press this view of the 
subject too earnestly upon the consideration of the 
British ministry. It has bearings and relations that 
reach beyond the immediate question under discus- 
sion." 

" I will add nothing as to the impropriety of suf- 
fering any feelings that Hnd their origin in the past 
pretensions of this government to have an adverse 
influence upon the present conduct of Great Bri- 
tain." 

Sir, I submit to you, and to the candor of all just 
men, if I am not right in saying, that the pervading 
topic, throughout theVhole is, not American rights, 
not American interests, not American defence, but 
denunciation of pa.st jyretensions of our own country, 
reflections on the past administration, and exulta- 
tion, and a loud claim of merit, for the administra- 



tion now in power. Sir, I would forgive mistakes: 
1 would pardon the want of information; I would 
pardon almost any thing, where I saw true patriot- 
ism and sound American feeling; but I cannot for- 
give the sacrifice of this feeling to mere Party. I 
cannot concur in sending abroad a public agent who 
has not conceptions so large andliberal, as^to feel, 
that in the presence of foreign 'Courts, amidst the 
monarchies of Europe, the is to stand up for his 
country, and his whole country; that no jot nor tittle 
of her honor is to come to harm in his hands; that 
he is not to suflijr others to reproach either his Gov- 
ernment or his Country, and far less is he himself to 
reproach either; that he is to have no objects in his 
eye but American objects, and no heart in his bosom 
but an American heart; and that he is to forget 
self, to forget party, to forget every sinister and nar- 
row feeling, in his proud and lofty attachment to the 
Republic, whose commission he bears. 

Mr. President, 1 have discharged an exceedingly 
unpleasant duty, the most unpleasant of my life. — 
But I have looked upon it as a duty, and it was not 
to be shunned. And, sir, however unimportant 
may be the opinion of so humble an individual as 
myself, I now only wish that I might be heard by 
every independent freeman in the United States, 
by the British Minister, and the British King, 
and by every Minister and every crowned 
head in Europe, while standing here in my place, I 
pronounce my rebuke, as solemnly and as decisive- 
ly as I can, upon this first instance, in which an 
American Minister has been sent abroad, as the 
representative of his Party, and not as the repre- 
sentative of his Country. 



REMARKS OF Mr. BUTLER, 

At the meeting of the Repubhcan Citizens of Albany, held on Saturday evening, Feb. 
4, in relation to the rejection of the nomination of Martin Van Buren. 



Mb. Chairman, 

The gentlemen who have already addressed you, 
have told you who, and what, the minister is, whose 
nomination has been rejected by the Senate — they 
have exposed the motives which led to this violent 
and unw-arrantable measure — and they have point- 
ed out the injurious consequences which cannot 
fail to result from it. 

There is a single point connected with these to- 
pics, which has not yet been adverted to, and which 
is too important to be omitted. I refer to the ob- 
jects of the mission which has now been broken up, 
and to the leading motive which induced the Pre- 
sident to otlLr, and the late incumbent to accept it. 
Having been honored by the latter with that confi- 
dence which enables me to speak upon the sub- 
ject, and the circumstances of the times making 
it highly proper that I should do so, I beg leave 
to state, that the mission of Mr. Van Buren had 
special reference to those doctrines and prac- 
tices of the British Government concerning im- 
pressments, blockades, and trade with enemies' 
countries, which, as you well recollect, constituted, 
for a long series of years, a standing cause of com- 
plaint on our part, and at length produced our se- 
cond war of independence. In the treaty of Ghent, 
by which that war was concluded, not a word was 
said as to these interesting topics. But though un- 
noticed in that instrument, the claims we had as- 
serted, were successfully maintained by the thunder 



of our cannon, on the ocean and the lakes, at Nia- 
gara and New-Orleans; and the practices against 
which it was levelled, were actually given up. 
Apprehensive, however, that they might be re- 
newed, whenever a war should break out ()etween 
Great Britain and any other maritime power ; and 
fully aware of the consequences which would in- 
evitably follow such renewal ; our Government 
made an unsuccessful attempt, immediately after 
the peace, to preclude the occurrence of such a 
state of things, by an amicable settlement of the 
disputed points. The matter has frequently been 
referred to since; but the various questions which 
have arisen under the treaty of Ghent, and above 
all, the difficulties which have grown out of the 
controversy concerning the colonial trade, have 
prevented, for several years, any attempt to nego- 
tiate on these subjects. On the conclusion of the 
recent arrangement concerning that trade, they 
justly engaged the first thoughts of the President. 
The changes which, about the same time, occurred 
in the government and domestic policy of Great 
Britain, and the favorable opinions evidently grow- 
ing up in that country, tow aids our people and po- 
litical institutions, seemed also to render it a propi- 
tious moment for renewing the negotiation; whilst 
the interesting and critical state of Europe, which, 
at that juncture, threatened a general war, ob- 
viously required that it should be done without de- 
lay. Mr. M'Lane, however, had already asked and 



17 



received leave to return to the United States; and 
Mr. Van Buren having resolved to retire from the 
State Department, it occurred to the President that 
he was eminently fitted to undertake this delicate 
and most important negotiation. His wishes on 
this subject were expressed in the strongest terms, 
and they were appreciated by iVIr. Van Buren. A 
desire to carry them into effect, was one of the 
strongest motives which induced Irim to accept the 
nomination; though he did so in opposition to the 
wishes and advice of his political and personal 
friends in this State, who, as you well know, were 
generally averse to his going out of the country. 
He was not unmindful of the sincerity, nor regard- 
less of the value of their opinions; but he thought — 
and justly thought — that the errand on which ho 
was "to be sent to the British Court, was one of 
mighty import, not only to the people of both coun- 
tries, but to the whole civilized world. He believed 
too — and if his course was prompted by this belief, 
you will not deny that the ambition it implies was 
a noble one — thai the minister who should succeed 
in bringing about an honorable settlement of these 
long litigated and dangerous questions, would emi- 
nently deserve, and undoubtedly receive, the high- 
est approbation of his countrymen. 

The leading object of this embassy was alluded 
to in the President's message at the opening of the 
present session. It was perfectly understood at 
Washington; and from the distinguished manner in 
which our minister had been received and treated, 
by the British king and the members of his govern- 
rnent, as well as from his practical talents and con- 
ciliatory manners, there was great reason to hope 
that his efforts would be successful. Was Mr. Clay 
afraid that such a result would be produced ? That 
a treaty would be concluded, which would cast into 
the shade that negotiated at Ghent.' Mr. Calhoun 
too— did Ae think that a rival, already formidable, 
might be rendered more so by the eclat of services 
abroad? And Mr. V\''ebster — was the duty — the 
solemn but most unpleasajit duty — of rejecting this 
nomination, strengthened by a desire to nip in the 
bud the honors due to a successful negotiator.' In 
view of -all the features of this case, let an intelli- 
gent public decide, whether there be not good rea- 
son for these inquiries. 

But however this may be, one thing is certain — 
the great objects of the embassy are not to be pro- 
moted by the course taken in the Senate. On the 
contrary, all the interests of the nation will receive 
detriment abroad. How extensive and lasting it 
may be, none of us can tell. Still, there inay be 
good cause for rejecting this nomination ; and if so, 
it may have been better to risk the evils referred 
to, than to have confirmed it. The decision of the 
Senate professes to have been made on this ground; 
and the reasons assigned for it, have been submitted , 
with admirable despatch, to the judgment of the 
people. I have read, with deep interest, all the 
speeches which have reached us ; and I have compar- 
ed their statements and reasoning, with the official 
documents, which, fortunately for the cause of truth, 
are to be found in other parts of the Union as well 
as at Washington. In my humble judgment, the 
causes they assign are not sustained in any one of 
them. To test this, let me call your attention — 
not to the idle gossip nor the dastardly insinuations 
which malevolence or credulity have dragged be- 
fore the Senate — but to the measured speech of Mr. 
Webster — the profoundly able, the cool and discri- 
minating Webster. And surely if there be good 
reasons for this step, he, of all others, is capable of 
placing tliem before us in the clearest and most 
3 



convincing light. His remarks, as publi3he<l in the 
National Intelligencer, have evidently been cor-* 
rected by himself. I shall consider them in this 
light, and shall hold him responsible, as you and the 
public have a right to hold him, for all that they 
contain. I intend to road to you every material 
paragraph; and as I proceed, I pledge myself to 
show, that he has misstated the facts he has under- 
taken to give; that he has omitted others wirich 
were essential to a proper judgment on the case 
before him; and that he has repeatedly garbled and 
perverted the language of Mr. Van Buren. I say 
this undor a full sense of the responsibility I assume. 
I know what I shall deserve, if I do not make it 
good. All I desire is, a patient hearing from you 
and from the public. In connexion with this expo- 
sure of error and injustice, I shall also undertake to 
show, that the instructions to Mr. M'Lane, when 
properly understood, contain nothing derogatory to 
the honor of the nation, but on the contrary, are 
entitled to all praise for their ability and frankness. 
After an introduction, which shows that he is 
perfectly aware of the light in which the measure^ 
if taken without sufficient cause, would be viewed, 
and ought to be viewed, both at home and abroad ; 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, pro- 
ceeds to assign the reasons of his vote. To do 
him perfect justice, I quote the paragraph at 
length : 

" I am bound to say, then, sir, that for one, I do 
not advise nor consent to this nomination. I do 
not think it a fit and proper nomination ; and my 
reasons are found in the letter of instruction, WFit- 
ten by Mr. Van Buren, on the 20th of July 1829, to 
Mr. McLane,then going to the court of England^ 
as American muiister. I think those [instruc- 
tions derogatory, in a high degree, to the character 
and honor of the country. I think they show a 
manifest disposition, in the writer of them, to esta- 
blish a distinction between the country and the par- 
ty ; to place that party above the country ; to 
make interest, at a ibreign court, for that party, 
rather than for the country ; to persuade the Eng- 
lish ministy and the English monarch, that they 
had an interest in maintaining, in the U. States, 
the ascendancy of the party to which the writer 
belonged. Thinldng thus of the purpose and ob- 
ject ol' those instructions, I cannot be of opinion 
that their author is a proper representative of the 
United States at that court. Ther-"lbre it is, that 
I propose to vote against his nomination. It is the 
first time, I believe, in modern diplomacy, it is 
certainly tlie first time in our history, in which a 
minister to a foreign court has sought to make fa- 
vor for one party at home, against another ; or hag 
stooped, from being the representative of the whole 
country , to be the representative of a party. And 
as this is the first instance in our history of any 
such transaction, sol intend to do all in my power 
to make it the last. For one, set my mark of dis- 
approbation upon it ; I contribute my voice and my 
vote, to make it a negative example, to be shun- 
ned and avoided by all future ministers of the U. 
States. If, in a deliberate and formal letter of in- 
structions, admonitions and directions are given to 
a minister, and are repeated once and again, to 
urge the'ie mere party considerations on a foreign 
government, to what extent, is it probable, the 
writer himself will be disposed to urge them, in 
his' one thousand opportunities of informal inter- 
course with the agents of that government.'" 

All this, sir, is extremely well expressed ; and 
if the instructions referred to, do really bear the 
character wlrioh tha Senator has given them, then 



18 



the condemnation he has pronounced, is strictly 
just ; and I, for one, will applaud him for his fideli- 
ty and firmness! The fact however, that the in- 
structions are such as he has stated, remains to be 
proved. AVhether they be so or not, may easily be 
decided, by a reference to the document itself ; 
and to this short and proper test, Mr. Webster pro- 
poses to bring the question. Before he does this 
however, he undertakes to state the posture of that 
matter to which they related, i. e. the state of our 
trade with the British West India Colonies. He 
then proceeds to give a very brief, but at the same 
time, a very artful statement of the "posture of the 
subject." '[Here Mv. Butler read Mr. Webster's 
statement of the circumstances preceding the ap- 
pointment of Mr. JNlcLane.] If this were a cor- 
rect statement, it would be ditficult to deny the 
justice of some of his animadversions. I shall show 
that it is grossly incorrect. I admit that it does 
not profess to be a minute history ; it is put forth 
as a mere outline ; but a single instance of un- 
faithfulness in an outline, will deceive even more 
than numerous errors in an elaborate work. In the 
present case, there are several such instances, and 
some of them of a most strildng character. 

In the first place, the honorable Senator entirely 
misstates the manner in wlrich this subject was dis- 
posed of by the convention of 1815. On tliis 
point he says: " All know that by the convention 
of 1815, a reciprocity of intercourse was establish- 
ed between us and Great Britain. The ships of 
both countries were allowed to pass, to and from 
each other respectively, with the same cargoes and 
subject to the same duties. But this arrangement 
did not extend to the British West Indies. — 
Thereout- intercourse was cut off." It is true, 
that by that treaty, the commercial intercourse 
between G. Britain and the United States was es- 
tablished on just and equal terms ; the ships of 
both countries being allowed to pass to and from 
each other respectively, \\ ilh the same cargoes and 
subject to the same duties. It is also true, that 
this arrangement did not extend to the British 
West Indies ; there being an express stipulation in 
the treat V, that the intercourse between the U. S. 
and the British possessions in the West Indies and 
on the continent of North America, should not be 
affected by any of its provisions. Tliis exception was 
mserted, m consequence of the peremptory refusal 
of the British government to negotiate on the sub- 
ject — a refusal founded on their determination, to 
adhere to their ancient policy of regulating tliis 
trade by navigation laws and not by treaty. 

Bvrt it is not true that " our intercourse to the 
West Indies was cut off'" liy that treaty, or by 
any state of things then existing. On the contra- 
ry^we then had an intercourse with those Islands, 
regulated precisely like that winch wc enjoyed be- 
fore the war. It was such an intercourse as was 
permitted by the acts of Parliament and orders in 
council, then in force. Our exports to the British 
West Indies and their American colonies amounted 
in 1815, to $3,081,295; in 1816, to ii^6,069,900; 
in 1817, to ^7,493,754,0/ our own products ; at 
least one-fifth of which was exported in American 
vessels. The duties collected by us on imports 
from those colonies, during the years 1813 and 
1816, exceeded, in the aggregate, ijf5,000,000, of 
which $1,130,817 were on importations in our own 
vessels; and yet, the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts could say in his place, and send it 
out into the world, that " our intercourse was cut 

off!" 

The error I have now pointed out is an extremely 



important one. It has a most material bearing on 
the subsequent acts and omissions of the public ser- 
vants by whom the business of this nation was af- 
terwards conducted. The tendency of Mr. AVeb- 
ster's statement is to show, that those acts and 
omissions v/ere not only excusable, but that they 
occurred in the course of " retaliatory" measures, 
entered into on the part of our government, with 
the view of opening an intercourse from wtiich we 
had been " cut off" by the treaty of 1815. That 
tliis Eissertion is utterly incorrect, I have already 
shown ; and if I should extend the same degree of 
charity to Mr. W. which he has displayed towards 
Mr. Van Buren, I should be obliged to add, " that 
he luiew, or ought to have known," that it was so. 
The gentleman who first addressed you, (Gen. 
Dix,) has given, in a very correct and lucid 
manner, the general history of the colonial trade. 
I shall not go over the ground that he has occupied; 
but it is necessary I should state, that in addition 
to the practice of regulating this trade by acts of 
Parliament and orders in council, another cardinal 
feature of the British policy was, the imposition of 
protecting duties on Amei'ican produce imported 
into their colonies. These protecting duties the 
British ministers in 1815 refused to give up, 
and they have ever adhered, and declared they 
should adhere, to tliis determination. Notwith- 
standing this, Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State, 
and Mr. Clay, as a leading member of the House 
of Representatives, undertook, the former to ne- 
gotiate, and the latter to drive, the British govern- 
ment from the stand they had taken. Between 
1815 and 1S23, various acts of congress were pass- 
ed, with the view of coercing the British govern- 
ment into a compliance with our demands. The 
nature and object of these acts are carefully over- 
looked by Mr. Webster; and this is the next ma- 
terial defect in liis summary to which I beg leave 
to call your attention. To compel the British go- 
vernment to give up their protecting duties, alien 
or discriminating duties were imposed and kept up 
by us, to the great dissatisfaction of Great Britain. 
But as these did not accomplish the object, the act 
of 1818, concernhig navigation, and that of 1820, 
supplementary thereto, were passed; the etTect of 
wliich was, to establish a non intercourse in British 
vessels with all the British American colonies, and 
to proliibit the introduction into the United States 
of all articles, the product of these colonies, except 
that of each colony imported directly from itself. 
This state of things continued until 1822, when the 
ports w"ere opened by virtue of acts of Congress and 
of Parliament, subject to certain restrictions — our 
discriminating duties being still retained, (though 
still objected to on the other side,) with a view to 
the original design of getting rid of the protecting 
duties. With further reference to this end, the 
act of the 1st of March, 1S23, was passed by Con- 
gress. This act, among other things, declared in 
effect, that so long as those duties were kept up in 
the Colonies, our discriminating duties should be 
exacted; and it provided, in case the trade ahow- 
ed by the British act of 1822, or any part of it, 
should be proliibited to us by Great Britain, that 
on tlie President's proclaiming the fact, the acts of 
1818 and 1820, before referred to, should be re- 
vived and in full force. It is evident from this no- 
tice of our legislation, during the period referred to, 
that it involved a claim on our part to be allowed 
to participate in tliis trade, without being subjected 
to the terms on which it was enjoyed by other na- 
tions, and which, in the judgment of the British 
government, were fundamental in their nature. — 



19 



This claim was also brought forward by our Minis- 
ters, under the instructions of Mr. Adams and Mr. 
Clay; and it is to tliis that Mr. Van Buren refers, 
when he speaks of the ''claims" and "jjretensions'' 
set up on our part, but afterwards abandoned by 
the last administration. 

The next event referred to by Mr. Webster, is 
the British act of the 5th of July, 182.5, of which 
he says that it otlered " recijirocitjj as fur as the 
mere carrybig trade was conceitied, to all nations 
who might choose within one year to accept the 
offer." Without stopping to show that this is not 
a very fair mode of stating the contents and effect 
of this act, let us look at the excuses wliich he 
gives for,its non-acceptance by Mr. Adams' admin- 
istration. 

The first, is " because it wxs never officially 
communicated to it." By this the senator means 
the public shall understand, that the act was U7i- 
Jinown to Mr. Adams' administration, because not 
communicated. If he does not mean thJs, then 
the excuse amounts to nothing ; for if they knew 
of the act, it was not at all material that it should 
be officially communicated. But did not Mr. Web- 
ster know, that it was not the practice of the two 
governments to communicate to each other, acts of 
legislation ? Did he not recollect that it was made 
known to Congress at the session of 1825-6 by the 
message of the President .' That the Baltimore 
merchants presented a memorial, in wliich they re- 



ferred to this law, and prayed Congress to act on 
it .' That Senator Smith introduced a bill on the 
subject, which was laid on the table by the vote, 
chiefly, of the administration senators .' That a reso- 
lution was introduced into the House of Representa- 
tives, by Mr. Cambreleng, of tliis State, calling on 
the committee on commerce, at the head of which 
was Mr. Newton, a warm supporter of the admin- 
istration, to report, whether it was not expedient 
to come in under this act .' If Mr. Webster does 
not know ViW this, tlien has he forgotten what pass- 
ed under his own eyes, dviring the session of 1825 
'6! If he does know all this, what shall we say of 
his candor and regard to trutli, in maldng this ex- 
cuse ? 

The second excuse he assigns is, " because only 
a few months before, a negotiation on the same 
subject had been suspended, with an understand- 
ing that it might be resumed." It is true that in 
July 1824, (not a few montlis, but within three 
weeks of a year before) a negotiation on this sub- 
ject, wliich had been for some time pending at 
London, between Mr. Rush on our part, and Mr. 
Huslcisson and Mr. Sfl-atford Canning on the oth- 
er, was suspended. But it is an entire mistake to 
say, that it had been suspended loith an understand- 
ing that it might be resumed. I know this excuse 
has been repeatedly set up by Mr. Clay ; but I al- 
so know, that the last protocols speak of the final 
communications of the ministers to their respec- 
tive governments ; and that they say not a sylla- 
ble about resuming the negotiation. ' If this point 
is to be decided by the record, then there is no 
pretence for saying, that there was any under- 
standing that the negotiation was to be resumed. 
After waiting very nearly a year, without hearing 
a syllable on the subject. Parliament passed the 
act of the 5th of July, 1825. The passing of 
this act was in itself the highest evidence, that the 
British Government were resolved not to depart 
from the ground they had maintained ; and how- 
men of sense can say, and hope to be believed, that 
they supposed the matter was still to be left 
open to negotiation, notwithstanding the enact- 



I ment of this law, passes my comprehension. 
j But there is a third reason for not accepting the 
I terms of this law. " It was very desirable to ar- 
range the whole matter, if possible, by treaty, w 
order to secure, if we could, the admission of our 
products into the British Islands lor consumption, 
[Mr. 'Webster means by this, free of the protecting 
duties,} as well as the admission of our vessels." — 
And he goes on to observe that this object had been 
pursued ever since the peace of 1815 ; and that 
Mr. Adams' administration was not the first to take 
this ground. I have already stated when, by whom, 
and for what purpose, this ground had bee'n taken. 
And it is only necessary, in order to dispose of this 
last excuse, to remark, that long before the expira- 
tion of the time limited for coming in under the 
act of 1825, it had been fully ascertained , that tliis 
object could not be eftected. Ten years of fruit- 
less negotiation had shown that the scheme was 
utterly impracticable. To pei-sist in pressing it, 
after the passage of the law of '25, evinced great 
want of judgment, and a singular passion for di- 
plomacy ; but very little either of good sense or 
statesmanship. 

" In this state of things," says Mr. Webster, 
" Mr. M'Lane was sent to England." This, sir, I 
deny. He was not sent under the state of thhigs 
sketched by Mr. Webster. The honorable senator 
has not only, as I have shown, given an erroneous 
coloring to all that he has stated", but he has entire- 
ly omitted the m_ost material portions of the case. 
He has omitted to state iMen and hoic the direct 
trade was cut of!', and the events which abroad 
and at home followed that event. It was cut oft' by 
an order in Council dated the 27th July 1826, v»diich 
took effect on the 1st of December" 1826, nearly 
two years after the commencement of Mr. Adams' 
administration. The order was issued, in conse- 
quence of the omission of our Government to avail 
itself of the offer held out in the British act of July 
1S25. Tlie trade enjoyed by us prior to December 
1826, though unequal and restricted, v.-as extensive 
and valuable. It was much better than a non- 
intercourse; and a large proportion of the capital 
and enterprise of the country was interested in it. 
The loss of this trade occasioned great complaint. 
Mr. Adams and his cabinet felt the pressure of the 
case. Mr. Gallatin — '.vho had been sent out in the 
beginning »f 182G, with a set of fhm.sy excuses for 
not accepting the law of 1825 — Mr. Gallatin, I say, 
was instructed in 1827 to beg anew of Lord Dudley 
(who had come into the Foreign Office after the 
death of Mr. Canning,) to be let in on the terms of 
the act of 1825. Mr. Gallatin did all that a minis- 
ter situated as he was, could do, but without suc- 
cess; and in the beginning of 1828, he returned in 
despair. Mr. Barbour was then sent with direc- 
tions to sue again for the same privilege. In the 
mean time, the subject had been fully brought be- 
fore the American people ; the documents were 
called for and read; Mr. Adam.s and his Secretary 
of State were charged with the loss of this trade, 
by neglect and mismanagement; they were vindi- 
cated by their friends in the best way which the 
subject admitted; but in the judgment of the Peo- 
ple, the vindication was imperfect. Plow much 
the popular dissatisfaction upon this point contribut- 
ed to the overthrow of Mr. Adams' administration, 
it is now impossible to tell. That it was one of the 
causes which contributed to that result, Mr. Web- 
ster himself does not venture entirely to deny ; 
though he suggests that other causes had a greater 
influence in producing it. However that may be, 
no man can deny that the loss of the West India 



20 



trade by the late administration, was distinctly 
made, at every poll in the Union, one of the princi- 
pal topics of accusation and defence ; and so long 
as this fact shall be admitted, it will be difficult to 
prove that this point was not included in tlie verdict 
rendered by the people. This, then, was " the 
state of things" under which Mr. M'Lane was sent 
to England, and received lus instructions from the 
Secretary of State. " In these instructions," says 
Mr. Webster, " are found the sentiments of which 
I complain. " What are they .' Let us examine and 
scc> 

" Mr. Van Buren tells Mr. M'Lane, ' The op- 
portmiities which you have derived from a partici- 
pation in our public councils, as well as other 
sources of information, will enable you to speak 
with confidence (as far as you may deem it proper 
and useful so to do,) of the respective parts taken 
by those to whom the administration of this Go- 
vernment is now committed, in relation to the 
course heretofore pursued upon the subject of the 
colonial trade.' " 

On this sentence he makes the following com- 
ment: 

«■' Now this is neither more nor less than saying, 
* you will be able to tell the British mimster, when- 
ever you think piojjer, that you, and I, and the 
leading persons in this administration, have opposed 
the course heretofore pursued by the Government, 
and the country, on the subject of the colonial trade. 
Be sure to let him know, that on that subject, we 
have held with England, and not with our own Go- 
vernment.' Now I ask you, sir, if tliis be dignified 
diplomacy.' Is this statesmanship .' Is it patriotism, 
or is it mere party .' Is it a proof of a high regard to 
the honor and renown of the whole country, or is it 
evidence of a disposition to make a merit of belong- 
ing to one of its political divisions.'" 

"Now, sir, if this sentence stood alone, without 
any thing to qualify or restrict it, it v.'ould not bear 
the version which the senator has given it. It 
would not have authorised Mr. M'Lane to say, that 
the members of the present administration had 
" opposed the course" theretofore pursued by "the 
/.«./.,/r,/ " and " held with England," instead of 



country, 

their own Government. But this perversion of 
the language he had quoted, is as nothing to v.hat 
I am about to mention. You will observe, sir, that 
the quoted sentence, standing by itself, would seem 
to warrant the remark, that Mr. M'Lane v,-as au- 
thorised, whenever he thought proper, to volunteer 
the statement— not tliat he and Mr. Van Buren 
*' had held with England instead of their own coun- 
try," as Mr. AVebsterhas it — but to state the parts 
taken by the present administration on the subject 
in question. The propriety of authorising our mi- 
nister to speak of such a matter, except in the event 
of its becoming necessary that he should do so, 
might well be questioned. But on reading the 
sentence which immediately precedes that quoted 
by Mr. Webster, you will find that no such un- 
limited authority was given. On the contrary, 
Mr. M'Lane was authorised to speak of this mat- 
ter only in a jjarticular state of things. What 
that was, the omitted sentence will show. It is as 
follows: " If the omission of this Government to 
accept of the terms j^roposed, when heretofore of- 
fered, be urged as an objection to their adoption 
now, it will be your duty to make the British Go- 
vernment sensible of the injustice and inexpediency 
of such a course." " The opportunities whichyou 
have derived," &c. &.c. 

I will not now stop to inquire, whether it was 
proper to authorise Mr, M'Lane to hold tliis lan- 



guage, in case the anticipated objection should be 
made. That question, I will by and by consi- 
der; but at present I ask. Is it tr^ie that Mr. 
M'Lane was authorised, " ichejiever he should 
think proper, to tell the British minister," &c.&c. ? 
On the contrary, is not his authority to speak of this 
subject at all, specially limited to the event of its 
being objected, that the former administration had 
omitted to accept the terms proposed ? Why then 
was the qualifying sentence omitted? I ask you, 
sir, if tliis be fair dealing.' Is this justice, or is it 
gross injustice .' Is it a proof of a high regard to 
truth and fairness .' Or is it evidence of a disposition 
to mislead the public mind ; to place the question 
on false grounds ; and to destroy a political oppo- 
nent, by any and every means? I protest to you, 
sir, I am sorry — truly sorry — to say, that in my 
humble judgment, it is conclusive evidence of such 
a disposition. 

Mr. Van Buren goes on to say: "Their views 
(those of the present administration,) upon that 
point have been submitted to the people of the 
United States; and the councils by which j'our con- 
duct is now directed, are the result of the judgment 
expressed by the only earthly tribunal to wliicli the 
late administration -was amenable for its acts. It 
should be sufficient that the claims set up by them, 
and wliich caused the interruption of the trade in 
question, have been explicitly abandoned by those 
who first asserted them, and are not revived by 
their successors." I have already alluded to Mr. 
Webster's observations on the first part of tliis par- 
agraph. On the assertion contained in the lat- 
ter part of it, he remarks: "It is manifestly 
quite wide of the facts. Mr. Adams' administra- 
tion did not bring forward this claim. I have stated 
already, that it had been a subject, both of negotia- 
tion and legislation through the whole eight years of 
i\Ir. Monroe's administration ; this the Secretary 
knew, or was bound to know. AVhy then does he 
speak of it as set up by the late administration, and 
afterwards abandoned by them, and not now re- 
vived?" 

The charge here made, of a departure from the 
facts, is quite gratuitous. It is not denied that the 
claims referred to Vi'ere set up by the late adminis- 
tration, nor that they were abandoned by them; the 
imputed departure i'rom truth consists in the sup- 
posed assertion that these claims were first set up 
by the late administration. But Mr. Van Buren 
does not assert that they were the first administra- 
tion which had set them up. He knew, as well as 
Mr, "Webster, that they were first set up under 
Mr. Monroe's administratifn, and if Mr. Web- 
ster's accustomed accuracy had not been lost to 
him, he would have recollected that in a former 
part of the instructions, (p. 6,) the Secretary had 
expressly stated, that the claims referred to were 
put forth in the act of Congress of the 1st of March, 
1823, and that they " had been previously advan- 
ced by us in our negotiations on the subject." But 
who 'were the persons who first set up those 
claims? Every man acquainted with the history 
of the subject knows, and at least every Senator in 
Congress ought to know, that they were John 
Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. And will it be 
denied that Mey had explicitly abandoned them? 
Where then is the departure from fact in tliis part 
of the instructions? 

But, says Mr. Webster, " the most humiliating 
part of the whole follows: ' To set up the acts of 
the late administration as the cause of forfeiture ot 
privileo-es, which would otherwise be extended 
to the^pcople of the United States, would, under 



21 



existing circumstances, be unjust in itself, and 
could not fail to excite their deepest sensibility.' " 
Here then, we have the " h&ad and front" of the 
Secretary's offending, as well as the fullest display 
of Mr. Webster's patriotism. It exudes from eve- 
ry pore in the following exclamation: " So, then, 
Mr. President, we are reduced, are we, to the poor 
condition, that we see a Minister of this great Re- 
public instructed to argue, or to intercede, with 
the British Minister, lest he should tind us to have 
forfeited our privileges; and lest these privileges 
should no longer be extended to us ! And we have 
forfeited those privileges by our misbehaviour, in 
choosing rulers, who thought better of our oivn 
claim than of the British '. Why, sir, tliis is pa- 
tiently submitting to the domineering tone of the 
Britislr Minister,^ I believe Mr. Iluskisson — [Mr. 
Clay said "no, Mr. Canning."] — Mr. Canning, 
then, sir, who told us that all our trade with the 
West Indies was a boon, granted to us by the in- 
dulgence of England. The British Minister calls 
it 2^ boon, and our Minister admits it is 2l privilege, 
and hopes that his Royal Majesty will be too gra- 
cious to decide that we have forfeited tliis privilege 
by our misbehaviour, in the choice of our rulers ! 
Sir, for one, I reject all idea of holding any right of 
trade, or any other riglrts, a. 2nivilege, or a boon, 
from the British government, or any other govern- 
ment." 

The point of tliis efliision consists in the changes 
which are rung upon the word "jjrivilege." Mr. 
Van Buren, recreant that he is, speaks of the offer 
held out in the British act of Parliament as a "pri- 
vilege.'" And tlris is patiently submitting to the 
domineering tone of Mr. Canning, who had called 
it a boon ! And on tliis theme we have a commen- 
tary, in wliich this horrible word "privilege" is 
treated as if it involved the utter abandonment of 
all principle and honor. Sir, in uttering this ti- 
rade, Mr. Webster has either displayed very great 
want of information himself, or counted very lai'ge- 
ly on the want of it in others. Ever since she has 
had Colonies, Great Britain has maintained, with 
inflexible perseverance, in common witli other 
powers having such possessions, the ancient policy 
of treating the trade with her colonies as a thing 
belonging exclusively to herself — a thing not to be 
enjoyed by other nations, save at such times and on 
such terms as she pleased. As to tlie wisdom of 
this policy; its inlluence on the Colonies tliem- 
selves; and its justice or liberality towards other 
nations; I have nothing to say; I speak only of the 
fact; and that it is as Lhave asserted, no man who 
has the least pretensions to general knowledge will 
venture to deny. It is on this principle that she 
has so uniformly persisted in the course of regula- 
ting the Colonial trade by acts of Parliament and 
orders in Council, which she could change at plea- 
sure, instead of forming treaties on the suliject 
which could not be so changed. Now, though our 
government was extremely desirous to place this 
matter on a more liberal and permanent footing, 
and to do so by treaty, rather than by separate 
legislation, yet until after we had lost the benefits 
held out by the British act of '25, we never pre- 
tended to deny the right of Great Britain to do as 
she pleased on the subject. The endeavor was, 
to convince her by argument and by retaliatory 
laws, that it was her interest to place this branch of 
her commerce on the same footing as the trade be- 
tween us and the mother country. In this we had 
not succeeded, and in the mean time, we had been 
content to take what we could get of tliis com- 
merce, as a privilege — I say as a privilege; be-- 



cause all the British statutes on this subject in(o 
which I have looked, speak of the permission gi\en 
to foreign nations to trade with the British colonies, 
as a privilege granted to such nations. The act of 
June, 1822, under which we enjojed a restricted 
intercourse until 1S2S, called it a privilege, and 
Mr. Monroe's administration did not consider it 
derogatory to the national honor to take the bene- 
fits oticred by that law as ^. privilege. On the con- 
trary, you will find, sir, that IMr. Adams, in one of 
his instructions to Mr. Rush, spends half a dozen 
pages in an attempt to settle the true construction 
of the phrase " the privileges granted by this act;" 
without once dreaming, with all his Bunker-Hill 
temperament, that there was any thing in the word 
"privileges" at which an American was to take 
fire. More than this: The famous act of July, 
1825, uses the same language. It provides "that 
the ^^ir/yi/eges granted by the law of navigation to 
foreign ships, shall be limited to the ships of those 
countries, which, having colonial possessions, shall 
grant the Wke privileges of trading with those pos- 
sessions to British ships, or wlrich, not having colo- 
nial possessions, shall ])lace the commerce and navi- 
gation of Great Britain and its possessions abroad, 
upon the footing of the most favored nation." — 
Now it was in reference to the advantages held out 
by this act, that Mr. Van Buren used the obnoxious 
language, which forms, in the judgment of Mr. 
Webster, the most culpable part of his instructions; 
yet we see that he spoke of them in the very terms 
of the act itself. But there is yet something fur- 
ther on this point. Mr. Clay himself, in his'letter 
to Mr. Gallatin of the llth of April, 1827, uses, in 
reference to this very point, the same language as 
Mr. Van Buren. He says, " we can hardly sup- 
pose, under these circumstances, that the British 
government after tiie passage of such an act of 
congress as you are now authorised to state that 
the President is willing to recommend, would re- 
fuse to remove the interdict which has applied 
only to the navigation of the United States. • A 
denial to them, alone, of the PRIVILEGES of the 
act of parliament of 1825, offered to all nations, 
could not be easily reconcilable with those friend- 
ly relations, which it is the interest of both nations, 
as it is the anxious endeavor of the government of 
the United States, to cultivate and maintain." 

I admit. Sir, that I am but a tyro in the science 
of diplomacy; but after tliis last reference, I tliink 
that without going beyond the spelling-book, I may 
safely ask the great lawyer of New-England; 
Whose bull it is that has gored the ox now ? Seri- 
ously, Mr. Chairman, can you imagine any position 
more pitiable than that in which the Senator has 
placed himself? He selects at leisure, the subjects 
of liis animadversions; he brings them out with 
great form and circumstance; he places himself on 
a particular passage, as one which admitted of no 
defence; and then, from this fancied vantage 
ground, he talks loudly of the insulted honor of his 
country — his country thus humbled at the feet of 
the British king! But lo! when we come to scruti- 
nize tills " most humiliating paragraph," we find 
in it nothing to justify this noise and bluster — no- 
thing to call for animadversion or remark — nothing 
which others had not said, and properly said before 
— we find it notliing — literallv" nothing ! Vox etpre- 
terea nihil! And yet. Sir, after all, the honorable 
Senator is more than half right. This famous peis- 
sage is really as " humiliating" as any other — per- 
haps more so than any other in tlie whole despatch. 
How " humiliating" this is, we have already seen; 
and from the character of this passage, you may 
judge as to the rest. 



34 



Mr. Webster proceeds to say, " At the conclusion 
of the paragraph, the secretaiy says, ' Vou can 7iot 
press this view of the subject too earnestly upon the 
consideration of the British ministry. It has bear- 
ings and relations that reach beyond the immediate 
question mider discussion.'" Here also I have to 
complahi that by ornitthig the sentence immediate- 
ly before it, theeliect of the sentence quoted is en- 
tirely destroyed. Spealdng of tlie feeling which 
was" likely to be produced in this country by a re- 
fusal on the part of Great Britain to permit us to 
participate in a trade \vhicli was opened to other 
nations, Mr. Van Buren had remarked. " The tone 
of feeling which a course so unwise and untenable 
is calculated to produce, would doubtless be great- 
ly aggravated, by the consciousness that Great 
Britain, by order in council, opened her colonial 
ports to Russia and France, notwithstanding a simi- 
lar omission on their part to accept the terms otler- 
ed by the act of July 1825." He then says, " You 
can not press this view of the subject too earnestly, 
^f."_that is— you can not too earnestly press the 
consideration, that if Great Britain persists in a 
course so unwise and untenable, she will excite a 
most unfavorable tone of feeling in the United 
States, &c. &c. This, Sir, is obviously the true 
sense of the passage, when taken in connection with 
what preceded it; and this is not only proper, but 
strong, language. And yet, by omitting the prece- 
ding sentence, the cited passage is made to mean that 
Mr. McLane could not " press too earnestly on the 
British ministry," the course which the present ad- 
ministration had taken in the Ibrrncr controversy. 
It is due, however, to Mr. Webster to say, that he 
rather insinuates than alleges that this is the mean- 
ing of the secretary; but one of his associates, Mr. 
Chambers, gives it this version, and dwells on it 
at length. Its injustice is palpable and glaring. 

The last quotation made by Mr. Webster for the 
purpose of sustaining the charges he had made, is 
from the close of thc^despatch, and is in the follow- 
ing words: '^ I will add nothing; as to the impro- 
priety of suffering any feelings that find their ori- 
gin in the past pretensions of this government, to 
have an adverse ififluencc upon thepre.'sent conduct 
of Great Britain." On this he asks whether it be 
statesmanship.' or dignity.' or elevated regard to 
countrv.' And ho sums "up his judgment of the 
whole 'document, in the following enquiry: " Can 
any man read this whole despatch, with candor, 
and not admit that it is plainly and manifestly the 
writer's object to gain credit with the British minis- 
try for the present" administration, at the expense'of 
the past.'" And he submits, in conclusion, that the 
pervading topic through the whole is, " not Anieri- 
can rights, not American interests, not American 
defence, but denunciation of past pretensions of 
our own country, rellections on the past adminis- 
tration, and exultation, and loud clainr of merit, for 
the administration now in power." 

I have now read to you all the proofs adduced by 
Mr. Webster, and every passage of his comments, 
which is material to a proper understanding of the 
grounds of his decision. The remainder of kis re- 
remarks— with the single exception of the sickly 
manner, in which he talks of Ww.'Uluty," the "wn- 
plea-^ant duty," the " most unpleasant duty of 

his public life" is precisely what it should 

have been, if the statements made and the cen- 
sures bestowed, in the former part of his address, 
had been correct and just. I have proved, by ev- 
idence which can neither be repelled nor evaded, 
in respect to all the special circumstances relied 
upon by the honorable Senator, Uiat his statements 



are palpably incorrect, and his censures as palpa- 
bly unjust. And I confess, sir, that it is to me, mat- 
ter both of astonishment and regret, that a Senator 
whose talents and reputation are even among 
his compeers so " proudly eminent," should have 
perverted his splendid powers, to a work so wisk- 
ed and so weak. 

The general tone of the whole document, and 
the propriety of autliorising Mr. McLane to speak, 
in a given event, of our political history and of the 
acts of our public men, remain to be considered. 

I wish, sir, that every person who takes an inte- 
rest in this subject, would read the whole of these 
celebrated instructions. As they occupy about a 
dozen large octavo pages, such a perusal is indis- 
pensable, if we would form an accurate judgment 
as to their general character and purpose. He 
who shall read them with but a moderate degree of 
impartiality, will tind that with a just regard to the 
rights and interests of our ovv-n country, there is 
btended throughout a manly frankness, which is 
calculated to inspire confidence and to command 
respect. So far from " holding with England," 
and " denouncing the past pretensions of Iris own 
country," the Secretary commences witli the de- 
claration that " the policy of the United States in 
relation to their commercial intercourse with oth- 
er nations, is founded on principles of perfect equa- 
lity and reciprocity ;" — that these principles "have 
been adhered to with scrupulous fidelity ;" — that 
the convention with Great Britain in 1815, esta- 
blished the intercourse between us and their pos- 
sessions in Europe " on just and equal terms ;" — 
that we then desired to put our trade to the Amer- 
ican colonies, on the same footing of equality and 
justice ; — and that to establish it on fair terms had- 
"■ always been the sincere object of this country." 
The various steps by which the unfortunate state 
of things, existing at the date of the instructions, 
had been produced, are detailed with fidelity ; the 
grounds on which we were liable to be assailed, in 
consequence of the acts and omissions of a former 
administration, are then frankly stated ; the in- 
jurious consi^quences, to both countries, of keep- 
ing up the British interdict, are strongly insisted 
on ; the wishes of the President, and the precise 
terms on which he is willing to settle the matter, 
are clearly expressed ; and Mr. McLane is direct- 
ed to make them loiown in such a plain and direct 
manner as to secure a prompt and explicit reply. 
This, sir, is the general tone of the instructions ; 
and I confess that I find in it nothing inconsistent 
with a vigilant regard to the jionor of the nation. 

But the applic'ation wlrich ]\Ir. McLane was di- 
rected to make, had been twice made by Mr. Gal- 
latin, and once by Mr. Barbour, during a former 
administration. On these occasions, it had not on- 
ly been denied, but the British government had re- 
fused to treat upon the subject, because of a previ- 
ous omission to take the privilege applied for, when 
iVanldy otiered by the act of July , 1825. That Mr. 
McLane would also be met by this objection ; and 
that unless it could be anticipated and removed, it 
would again interpose an insuperable bar to the 
success of the negotiation ; was not only Icnown to 
those who gave him his instructions, but to tlie 
whole people. If this objection were brought for- 
ward, then,— and then only— he was to make the 
other party " sensible of the injustice and inexpe- 
diency of 'such a course," by saying to them, in 
substance, " although you have a right to hold our 
constituents to the consequences of the acts and 
omissions of their former servants, our predeces- 
sors, if you choose to do so— because they had a ge- 



23 



neral authority to act for our constituents, and you 
could only know their sentiments by the acts of 
their agents — yet in truth the American people did 
not approve of their conduct in this matter ; on 
the contrary, the moment they became acquainted 
with the subject, they removed their former agents 
from the stations they had tilled, and put us in their 
place, for the express purpose, among other things, 
of settling this very atl'air on the ternis before pro- 
posed by you." 

Was it proper to instruct Mr. iVIcLane to hold 
tliis language i Under the circumstances of this 
case, considering the interest which the people had 
taken in the matter, — the decision they had pro- 
nounced — the importance of the particular object 
in view — and the still greater importance of pla- 
cing the relations of the two countries on a friend- 
ly footing — I cannot doubt that it was so. It is 
undoubtedly making a distinction between the 
country and a former administration — not, how- 
ever, for the purpose of " making interest for a 
jiart]], rather than for the country" — nor with the 
view of" making favor for o/ie party at home,a- 
gainst another" — but evidently from a sincere and 
anxious desne to secui-e to the country — aye, sir, 
to the " whole coni\{vy''' — the advantages in ques- 
tion. 

In making this distinction no injury is done to 
the nation — there is nothing in it, derogatory to the 
honor of the country. I grant that it implies, to 
some extent, a reflection on the conduct — perhaps 
on the capacity and fairness — of the former admin- 
istration. And I do not wonder that the members 
of that administration should feel somewhat res- 
tive under an implication of this sort. But an im- 
plication of the same character — though infinitely 
stronger and more humiliating — was contained in 
the result of the election of 1828 ; and those who, 
by that election were brought into the administra- 
tion, were not only authorized, but bound, to take 
this course, for the purpose of accomplishing the 
wishes of their constituents. To say that it ought 
not to have been taken, because it involved a re- 
flection — or if you please, a reproach — on the for- 
mer administration, is to place the character and 
interests of the public agent above those of the pub- 
lic themselves — a theory, which, however, it may 
suit the meridian of some governments, is, in my 
judgment, utterly repugnant to the principle of 

ours. With us, sir, the people the " whole" 

people are the parties really interested in all 

the affairs of government, as well as the sources 
of all political power ; and the particular admin- 
istration which may at any time be in office, arc 
merely the instruments by which they act — the 
organs by which they speak. In their intercourse 
with foreign powers, as well as on all othersubjects, 
they arc bound to express the sentiments, and to 
obey the will, of those who have commissioned 
them. I do not profess, sir, to be deeply read in 
the history of diplomacy ; but unless I am greatly 
mistaken, these principles have generally been 
acted on, for the last century, even by the govern- 
ments of Europe. But however tliis may be, they 
spring so naturally from the character of our politi- 
cal institutions, and are so congenial to justice and 
common sense, that in reference to ourselves, I 
entertain a confident persuasion of their truth. 

I trust, sir, I have shown that the honor of 
the republic has not been tarnished by these in- 
structions. I wish I could say as much in refe- 
rence to all the negotiations on this subject. — 
This, however, cannot be said of that part of them 
which was conducted by the late administration. 



The general tone of the instructions transmitted by 
Mr. Clay to Mr. Gallatin, ui the years 1826 and 
'27, is that of a culprit who luiowsthat he deserves, 
and fears that he shall feel, the rod; but who, in 
the very act of deprecating the consequences of 
his misconduct, aggravates his offence, and seals 
his condemnation, by resorting to quibbles and sub- 
terfuges. It is the only page in the history of 
American diplomacy, of which we have reason to 
be ashamed. In the perusal of this page, the pa- 
triot will hang his head; for he will find in every 
line the windings of the serpent, but not a trace of 
his wisdom — tlie weakness of the dove, but none 
of her simplicity or innocence. Take a single in- 
stance. When the negotiation was suspended at 
London, in July, 1824, Mr. Rush wrote to Wash- 
ington for further directions. None were sent to 
him; and tliough Mr. King was sent out in June, 
1825, and remained nearly a year, he was unin- 
structed on this point. Not a line was written on 
the subject from the State Department, until the 
19th of June, 1826, when Mr. Clay gave his in- 
structions to Mr. Gallatin, who was then about 
taking the place of Mr. King, and the special object 
of whose mission was to prevent the British act of 
July, 1825, from being closed upon us. To avoid 
this result, Mr. Clay instructs him that it had al- 
ways been the intention of our government to re- 
sume at London the negotiation which had been 
suspended in 1824, and that it would have been 
done by Mr. King, had not the state of his health 
and various other circumstances prevented him 
from entering on the subject. Mr. Gallatin, in his 
first letter to Mr. Canning, under date of the 26th 
of August, 1826, brought forward this statement, 
supposing, undoubtedly, that it was true. Sir, it 
was not only no/ true, but Mr. Cannuig had it in 
his power to prove that it was not. In his reply of 
the 11th of September, '26, he thus sweeps away, 
with a single dash of his pen, this — the only excuse 
then set up for our previous delay: "Mr. Gallatin 
in his note of the 26th of August states, 'it is well 
known that the delay in renewing the negotiation 
upon the subject of the colonial intercourse, on 
principles of mutual accommodation, is due to 
causes not under the control of the United States., 
principally to the state of health of Mr. King.' 
Upon this point, the undersigned has only to ob- 
serve, that no intimation that Mr. King had re- 
ceived instructions which icould have enabled him 
to resume the tiegotiation, was ever before com- 
municated to the British government. On the 
contrary, the only communication at all relating to 
this matter, which has ever reached him in any au- 
thentic shape, was in a despatch from Mr. Vaugh- 
an, dated the 22d of March last, (1826,) wherein 
that Minister states: that ' Mr. Clay had informed 
him that he should not be able to furnish Mr. 
King with his instructions before the end of the 
month of May, (May, 1826,) to enable him to re- 
commence the negotiation.' " Judge, sir, what 
must have been the mortification of our Minister 
when he received this response! Retransmitted 
it to Wasliington, and subsequently received from 
Mr. Clay, in his despatch of the 11th of Novem- 
ber, 1826, a new set of excuses, (the same which 
have been made by Mr. Webster,) which were 
just as easily demolished by the Britisli secretary as 
that which had preceded them. This last commu- 
nication contained a reluctant admission of the 
fact, that no instructions on this point were ever 
given or sent to Mr. King; with a laboured but 
lame attempt to prove that the former statement 
was consistent with, the truth. This attempted ex- 



^4 



planation was, however, so entirely insufficient, 
that Mr. Gallatin did not venture to suggest it to 
Mr. Canning; and to this hour the original state- 
ment lies among the archives of the British court, 
without the semblance of vindication or excuse! 

I will not detain you by any comments on this 
transaction, further than to say, that a-s " this is 
the fiist instance in Our liistory" in which a Secre- 
tary of State has ever dared to put an untruth in- 
to the mouth of a minister abroad, so I fervently 
pray that in all future time, it may ever be consid- 
ered *' a negative example, to be shunned and a- 
voided" by all his successors. Sir, it urns " shun- 
ned and avoided" by his immediate successor. — 
You will find in the instructions to Mr. McLane, 
none of that sort of " statesmanship," with wliich 
the last administration seemed to be so familiar. — 
On the contrary, they are marked by that integri- 
ty and singleness of purpose — that candor and plain 
dealing — which adorn the character of the Pres- 
ident, and which, under his influence and direction, 
have distinguished all our recent negotiations. 

But whatever may have been the course of Mr. 
Clay whilst Secretary of State, it must be admitted, 
that noio he almost rivals Mr. Webster, in a tender 
regard for the honor of the country and the charac- 
ter of our diplomacy. He thinks too, with his dis- 
tinguished associate, that both have come to harm 
in the hands of his successor. And if we are to 
credit their assertions, all the Senators who oppos- 
ed the nomination — and I suppose also the presi- 
ding officer who gave the casting vote — have been 
exclusively influenced by this elevated motive and 
the duties\vhich flowed from.it. Sir, it is always 
a harsh thing, to say of public men, that we do not 
confide in their solemn asseverations. That ma- 
ny of the Senators who voted against this nomina- 
tion, may have been brought to believe, that its re- 
jection was due to the character of the nation, I am 
not disposed to doubt. Undue confidence in politi- 
cal leaders, and that obliquity of understanding 
which is the natural result of prejudice and passion, 
of personal interest and, party zeal, will oftentimes 
induce unright and intelligent men, to believe, 
what if left to themselves they would never have 
suspected ; and to make that belief the foundation 
of their acts. But that the leaders of tiiis new and 
strangely assorted coalition — and more especially 
the thi-ee distinguished individuals whom the pub- 
lic have designated as its heads — were induced to 
take for thenriselves, and to urge upon their follow- 
ers, this unprecedented step, from an impressive 
sense of public duty, growing out of a sacred re- 
gard to the honor of the country, and from no other 
motive, is what will never be believed by the in- 
telligent people of the United States. The com- 
mon sense of mankind will repudiate the idea that 
such coiddhTive been the motive. I will not go into 
the evidence on which this conclusion will be 
founded. It is needless that I should do so — the 
thing is palpable — it speaks for itself, in terms so 
plain and unambiguous, that " he who runs, may 
read." A formidable rival — a powerful opponent 
— was to be p>it out of tire way ; the measures of 
the administration were to be thwarted and de- 
ranged ; and the feelings of the President were to 
be wounded in the tenderest point, by the sacrifice 
of his friend. Those who reared the altar on which 
the victim was immolated, will not only be held ac- 
countable for the injustice of the act itself, but for 
[lolluting with savage rites, what has hitherto been 
deemed consecrated ground. 

One word more, and I shall trespass no longer 
on your patience. It seems from the reported 



speech of Mr. Clay, that he deemed it consistent 
with the dignity of the Senate, and pertinent to the 
question before them, to assail the character of 
New- York. " An odious system of proscription," 
says the honorable .Senator, " draiim from the 
worst periods of the Roman republic, is constantly 
acted on in that State." My friend, col. M'Kown, 
with indignant eloquence, has adverted to this at- 
tack. I allude to it for another purpose. I am 
happy to avail myself of the reference of i\Ir. Cla}'; 
for whatever may be its application to any thing" 
which now exists, or has ever existed, in New- 
York, it is peculiarly appropriate to the measure we 
are considering. If I have rightly read the liistory 
of that far famed republic, its worst period was 
when the higlily gifted, but licentious and despe- 
rate Antony, and that arch dissembler, Octavius 
Ceesar, formed, with the restless and aspiring Lepi- 
dus, the Second Triumvirate. You recol- 
lect, sir, the history of that infamous coalition. — 
Each of its members aimed at the sovereign power; 
each hated the other; though at the moment, Oc- 
tavius was professedly the friend and supporter of 
Antony. The immediate object was, to combine 
a force sufficiently powerful to put down their com- 
petitors and opponents. For this purpose, Lepi- 
dus, who was despised by both his coadjutors, wza 
brought into the Triumvirate; and by his vote the 
" black proscription" was decreed. The first ora- 
tor in Rome was the chief object of their hate, and 
one of their earliest victims; though on this point, 
Octavius affected to yield a reluctant assent to the 
wishes of his associates. Whether, in the end, he 
ascribed that assent to a solemn conviction oi duty 
to the republic, is not recorded by the historians; 
but it is recorded, that his pretended reluctance in 
the case of Cicero, was the merest aflectation. — 
After having served the turn for which he had been 
used, the miserable Lepidus was abandoned to ob- 
scurity and contempt. In the fate of liis prototype, 
the Lepidus of this Seco^-d Coalitiox may 
read, with unerring certainty, his own approaching 
doom; and in the sentence which impartial pos- 
terity has passed on the motives and conduct of 
that, I anticipate, with confidence, the judgment 
of the American people, on the acts and motives of 
this Triumvirate. 



Note. — The preceding remarks were delivered ^ 
and a great part of them written out, before the 
speeches of Senators Smith, Forsyth, and 
Marcy, and the second speech of Mr. AVebster 
were received at Albany. Some of the points 
might have been strengthened, if the author had had 
the benefit of the facts resting within the person- 
al knowledge of Messrs. Smith and Forsyth, and 
which are stated in their respective speeches. To 
prevent misapprehension, it is proper to observe, 
that the bill to which Mr. Forsyth refers, as 
having been lost, in consequence of a disagree- 
ment between the two houses as to certain amend- 
ments made in the House of Representatives, was 
introduced in the session of 1826-7 ; whereas the 

ocecdings referred to above, all took place in 



1825-6, and before the mission of 



the session of 
Mr. Gallatin. 

As Mr. Webster has not, in his second speech, 
corrected any of the errors contained in his former 
remarks, I find no occasion for altering what I had 
said and written out. But there are two points, 
in his last remarks, which deserve notice. 

Mr. Webster has attempted to show, that the 
"pretension" spoken of by Mr. VanBuren, asha- 
ving been " abandoned by those v,ho first setitup," 



@6 



had in truth originated with General "Washington ; 
and to prove this he quotes a paragrapli from the 
instructions of President Washington to Mr. Mor- 
ris, dated in October, 1789. In this passage, Mr. 
Morris is directed to insist " on the privilege'" [an- 
other instance of the use of this offensiN-s term, and 
by the father of liis country too,] " of carrying our 
productions, in our vessels, to their Islands, and of 
bringing in return the productions of those Islands, 
to our own ports and markets," as one of the high- 
est importance. On the supposition, that this was 
the identical pretension which had been spoken of 
by Mr. Van Burcn, Mr. W. indulges himself in a 
fancied triumph, which would be of extremely 
short duration if he would condescend to give his at- 
tention to the precise character of the ^'preten- 
sion" referred to by Mr. V. B. It was not a claim 
to be allowed " to carry our own productio7is, in 
our vessels to the West India Islands, and to bring 
in return the productions of those Islands to ovr 
own ports," which was the privilege claimed by 
President Washington ; but a claim to be permit- 
ted to carry our productions to those Islands, and to 
enter th?m there free of the protecting duties im- 
posed on our produce. This is the pretension re- 
ferred to by Mr. Van Buren, as will be seen on re- 
ference to his instructions; and of tliis, not a word 
is said in the extract from Gen. Washington. 

Again. Mr. Webster refers to our act of the 1st 
of March, 1823, to show that " Congress itself has 
sanctioned this same pretensio7i." This act, he in- 
forms us, was passed 2 years before the commence- 
ment of Mr. Adams' administration, and in a note 
he adds that Mr. Van Buren was himself a mem- 
ber of the Senate and Mr. McLane of the House, 
at the time cf its passage — and upon this, he asks 
various questions, all founded on the supposition 
that tiiislaw was " overlooked or forgotten" when 
the instructions were penned ; and tending to as- 
cribe this fact to the want of any '■'tolerable acquain- 



tance imtJi the history of the negotiaticns of fJie 
U. States, or their legislation, Sfc." Now I have 
already explained a\>ove, what Mr. Van Buren had 
said on this point ; and to prove that he was ac- 
quainted with the fact that the pretension referred 
to was brought forward whilst Mr. Monroe was 
President, i referred to this very Imo of 
1823, as one in which it was embodied, and which 
was also stated at length in the instructions. In 
page 5 of the instructions, Mr. V. B. introduces 
this law, as " the next material step in the move- 
ments of the two governments." And on account 
of " the influence which it had obviously had on 
the course of affairs, in relation to the trade in 
question," he proceeds to state its contents, which 
he sums up in four particulars, the second of which 
is as follows : " 2d'ly. It put forth a claim which 
had been previously advanced by us in our nego- 
tiations upon the subject, but always resitted by 
Great Britain, viz : that no higher duties should 
be imposed upon the productions of the United 
States in the British Colonial ports, than upon those 
of Great Britain herself, or her other colonies, and 
which had been levied for the protection of their 
mvnprodnce. This was done by giving an autho- 
ritjr to 1;he President to suspend the payment of our 
discrimin'iting dutias by British vessels, coming 
from the colonies, upon being satisfied that no such 
duties were levied in the colonies on our produce, 
and by decbring that, until such evidence was 
given, payment should continue to be exacted." — 
[Instructions, p. 6.] 

And yet Mr. Webster would really wish the peo- 
ple of the United States to believe, that tlie in- 
structions were written in utter ignorance of this 
law, thus spread out upon their face ! Is it possi- 
ble that Delias not yet read those instructions 1 If 
he has not read them, what is his judgment on 
them worth ? If he A as read them, vrhat is the 
value of his candor .•" 



REMARKS OF Hon. Wm. L. MARCY, 

In the U. S. Senate, on tlie nomination of Mr. Van Buren. 



Mr. MARCY said, that he had intimated hereto- 
fore, more than once, that it was not his intention to 
offer to the senate any observai ions upon the main 
question now before them. AVhat regarded the 
public conduct of the present Minister to London, 
was better understood by other members, and wliat 
was to be said in explanation or vindication of it, 
would be better said and better received from mo.st 
of them, by reason of their great experience in pub- 
lic affairs, and their particular knowledge of the 
transactions which have been brought under review 
in this discussion. He had determined that it 
would be his duty to trouiDle the senate with re- 
marks, only in case topics should be introduced in- 
to the debate, with which he might well he suppos- 
ed, from his local situation, to be particularly ac- 
quainted. 

The occasion which rendered it proper, that he 
should say something, had arisen in consequence of 
what had fallen from the hon. senatcr from Ken- 
tucky, (Mr. Clay.) His attack was not confined to 
the nominee; it reached the state which he, (Mr. 
M.) represented in this body. One of the grounds 



of opposition to tlie Minister to London, taken by the 
senator from Kentucky, was the pernicious system 
of party politics adopted by the present administra- 
tion, by which the honors and otiices v.ere put up to 
be scrambled for by partizans, &c. A system which 
the minister to London, as the senator from Ken- 
tucky alleged, liad brought here from the state in 
which he formerly lived, and had for so long a time 
acted a conspicuous part in its political transactions. 
I Icnow, sir, said Mr, M., thaf it is the habit of some 
gentlemen to speak with censure or reproach of the 
politics of New- York. Like other states, vve have 
contests, and, as anecess-ary consequence, triumphs 
and defeats. The state is large, with great and di- 
vei'sitied intc>ests; in some parts of it, commerce is 
th*e object of general pursuit; in others, manufac- 
tures and agriculture are the chief concerns of its 
citizens. We have men of enterprise and talents, 
who aspire to public distinction. It is natural to ex- 
pect from these circumstances and others that might 
be alluded to, that her politics should excite more in- 
terest at home, and attract more attention abroad, 
than those of many other states in the confederacy. 



26 



It amy be, sir, that the politicians of New- 
York are not so fastidious as some gentlemen are 
aa to disclosing the principles ou which they act.— 
They boldly preach what they practise. When they 
are contending for victory, they avow their intention 
c.f enjoying the fruits of it. If they are defeated, 
they expect to retire from office ; if they are success- 
ful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages 
of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule, 
that to the victor belongs the spoils of the enemy. 

But if there be any thing wrong in the policy 
which the senator from Kentucky has so strongly 
reprobated, he should know that this policy was not 
confined to the Minister to London and his friends in 
New York, but is practised by his [Mr. Clay's] own 
political friends in that State: he should know that 
if to one man, more than any other now living, the 
existence of that policy is to be ascribed, it is to one 
of the Senator's own political friends. The practice 
of making extensive changes in the offices, on the 
change of parties in that State, w<as begun, I believe, 
before the nominee was upon the political stage; 
certainly while he was quite a young man, and be- 
fore he had acquired great consideration in political 
affairs. I must be permitted, Sir, to say, that oi all 
the party men with whom I have acted, or been par- 
ticularly acquainted, (and the number of such is not 
small,) I know of no one who has acted with, or ad- 
vised to, more moderation than the person whose 
noniination we are now considering. 

When the Senator from Kentucky condemns the 
present administration for making removals from of- 
fice, and then ascribes the act to the pernicious sys- 
tem of politics imported from New-York, I fear he 
does not sufficiently consider the peculiar circum- 
stances under which the present administi-ationcame 
into power. General Jackson did not come in un- 
der the same circumstances that Mr. Adams did, or 
Mr. JMonroe, or Mr. Madison. His accession was 
like that of Mr. Jeflerson. He came in. Sir, upon 
a political revolution. The contest was without a 
parallel. Much political bitterness was engendered. 
Criminations and recriminations were made. Slan- 
ders of a most extraordinary character flooded the 
land. When the present Chief Magistrate took 
upon himself the administration of tlie Government, 
he found almost all the offices, from the highest to 
the lowest, filled by political enemies. That his 
Cabinet was composed of his friends, no one will 
complain. The reasons for thus composing it will 
apply with considerable force to many of the officers 
under the heads of I he several Departments. 

If some dismissals of the subordinate officers in 
-those departments were made, it will not be assert- 
ed that all opposed to the administration were dis- 
charged. I have heard it confidently asserted, by 
those who I supposed spoke with knowledge on the 
aubject, that many, perhaps a majority of those re- 
tained, — and almost all were retained — belong now 
to the opposition— they arc the political supporters 
of the honorable Senator from Kentucky. 

I have good reasons — very good reasons, for bo- 
lievino', that it is thu gentleman's rule of conduct, to 
tftke care of his friends when ho is in power. It 
•equires not the foresight of a prophet, to predict, 
that if he shall come into power, he will take care 
of his friends, and if he does, I can assure him, 1 
shall not complain; nor shall I be in the least surpris- 
ed if he imitates the example which he now so em- 
phatically danouncos. 

Now I am up, 1 will offer a few words relative to 
• the much censured instructions to our former Min- 
iver to England. I must say, I have discovered in 
mwiij n<5thing to merit or pioTokc the harsh strictures 



bestowed on them. They do not, in my opinion;^ 
furnish a fit occasion for the senator from Kentucky? 
to impute to Mr. Van Buren, as he has done, with 
passionate emphasis and frequent reiteration, a charge 
of falsehood or culpable ignorance. The language 
which he desired might be taken down, is, " That 
Mr. Van Buren stated what was false, or he icas 
culpably ig;norant for not knowing that it 
ivas false." The instructions allege, that those 
who first asserted certain claims to interfere 
with the regulations of Great Britain, as to the Co- 
lonial trade, abandoned them, &c. The senatorfrom 
Kentucky chooses to consider this a declaration, that 
the late adininistration^z-.v^ asserted the claims, and 
then abandoned them. If we admit his construc- 
tion to be the true one, to what does it amount.' — 
He does not deny — indeed it is expressly admitted 
— that the late administration asserted the claims, 
and then waived them. What then is the mighty 
difference between the assertion in tire instructions, 
and the fact as admitted here? We are told that 
the late administration were not the ^rs^ to assert 
them — that they were set up under the administra- 
tion of Mr. Monroe. If this pretended falsehood is 
of such a flagitious character as has been given to 
it, it is natural to expect that it would change very 
essentially the meaning of the sentence. If there be 
the least error in the instructions, it is in the use of 
the word ^rs^,- strike out that icordznA let us see 
whether the meaning of the sentence is materially 
changed. Whether the late administration wei-e the 
first to assert the claims, and then gave them up: or 
asserted them after they had been previously assert- 
ed by Mr. IMonroe's administration, and then gave 
them up, is very nearly the same thing. If there 
was any thing wrong or reprehensible in asserting 
claims or pretensions, and then giving them up, the 
censure incurred by the late administration in so 
doing, is not much mitigated by the circumstance 
that a preceding administration had asserted similar 
claims or pretensions. It appears to me that if a 
ca'^ise of censure had not been very much wanted, 
such an one as this would i5X)t have been hunted up 
and put forth so prominently. 

The manner in which our late minister to London 
was instructed to conduct the negotiation, may, for 
ought I know, be unusual; but it docs not appear 
to me to be censurable. The whole affoir presents 
itself to me as a very plain matter. The British go- 
vernment, by their act of Pariiamcnt of 1825, offer 
to the United States a participation in the trade with 
her American colonies, on certain conditions, the 
particulars of which it is not at all necessary now to 
consider. That administration, for some reason or 
other, — probably m the hope ol" getting better— refu- 
sed the terms offered, and claimed more advanta- 
geous ones, as a matter of right; but afterwards, 
finding, I presume, that bettor terms could not be 
obtained, and their claim of right could not be sus- 
tained, concluded to talce those that were fir-st of- 
fered and had been refused. "^Vhen they proposed 
to take these terms, the British government told 
tliem they were too late, and positively refused to 
grant what it had before offered. The colonial trade 
was lost to the country. The late administr-ation at- 
tempted to recover it — they made more than one at- 
tempt to open a negotiation with the British govern- 
ment, for the purpose of obtaining that trade on the 
very terms on which it had been offered to and refu- 
sed by them. This was the situation ol aflaii-s 
when that administration went out of power. The 
commercial interests of the country required that 
their successoi-s, who thought the terms offered by 
tho British government should have been accepted, 



1 



27 



should make an effort to regain that important trade. 
As negotiation had been repeatedly and peremptori- 
■Jv refused to the United States, it was necessary to 
olfer some excuse for attempting it again. That 
excuse was found in the public and notorious fact, 
that tlie administration of the afTairs of the United 
States had passed from the hands of those who re- 
fused the offisred terms, into the hands of those who 
thought the offered terms ought to have been accept- 
ed, and who censured their predecessors for not ac- 
centing them. Mr. McLane was instructed to use 



this fact to remove any obstacle to opening the ne- 
gotiation for tlie recovery of the lost West India 
trade, in case any obstacle should be interposed on 
account of the manner in which the late administra- 
tion had managed this aflair. I confess that I cannot 
see any thing wrong in these much censured instruc- 
tions. I see no invoking of favors on party conside- 
rations — no abandonment of honor or dignity. Gen- 
tlemen may call it novel diplomacy; but I call it plain 
dealing, and the result has shown it was a successful 
negotiation. 



REMARKS OF Hon. S. SMITH, 

In the U. S. Senate, on the nomination of Mr. Van Buren. 



Mr. President — I have said, " that, the se- 
cretary of state is not responsible, for instructions 
given by order of the President;" — that, the Presi- 
dent is the only responsible person known to the 
Constitution. In England, agreeably to its consti- 
tution, the King can do no wrong, and his advisers 
are held responsible to parliament. Our constitu- 
tion is different, as I understand it. The law which 
created the state department in 1789, is that under 
which every secretary has acted and must continue 
to act. This law says, " the secretary for foreign 
affairs shall perform and execute such duties as shall 
from time to time be enjoined on, or entrusted to 
him, hy the President of the United States, (agree- 
ably to the constitution) relative to correspondences, 
commissions or instructioiis to or with public min- 
isters or consuls from the United States, or to nego- 
tiate with public ministers from foreign states or 
princes, and furthp.rmore, that the said principal offi- 
cer, (secretary of state) shall conduct the business 
of the said department, in such manner as the Presi- 
dent of the United States, shall from time to time, 
" order or instruct." 

Such, Mr. President, is the law. The secretary 
can do no act without the direction of the President, 
and whatever he directs, (if agreeably to the consti- 
tution) the secretaiy, under the oath he takes, must 
perform. What is the oath.' " Well and faithfully 
to execute the trust committed to him." What is 
that trust? Obedience to the instructions of the Pre- 
sident in all cases where the constitution is not to 
be violated. 

I have, Mr. President, been thirtj'-nme years in 
congress, and this is the first occasion I have ever 
heard any other construction seriously urged, than 
" that the instructions given to ministers abroad are 
the act of the President." All the instructions I re- 
member commence thus — " I am instructed by the 
President to give you the following views, &c. &c." 
or words to that effect. I well i-emember a case in 
point, which transpired while I was in congress more 
than thirty years past. I was called from my seat 
by the then secretary of the navy. He asked me 
what the house of representatives were doing. I 
replied tliat they were discussing the report of Mr. 
Pickering. Do the house consider it as the report 
of tire President or the Secretaiy of State .' It is con- 
sidered as the act of the President, who sent it, and 
how could it otherwise be considered .' I come, said 
the Secretary, from Mr. Adams, to request you to 
say, that he disavows it, and trusts that the house 



will consider it as the act of Mr. Pickering, and not 
as his (Mr. Adams') act. I returned into the house 
of representatives, and in the debate, took occasion 
to comment upon the report, as severely as the re- 
port reflected upon Mr. Gerry for remaining in 
France. I was called to order three times. I then 
asked the Speaker in what respect I was out of or- 
der. He replied, " you must consider the report as 
the act of the President; for the Executive had 
made it his by sending it to the house." I answer- 
ed, that the President disavowed it, and therefore I 
could not treat the report as the President's. I took 
my seat. An appeal from the Speaker's decision 
was had, and the vote o'' the house sustained the 
opinion of the Speaker, by a large majority, thus es- 
tablishing that the President was responsibly, and 
not the Secretary, for acts done under his authority. 
In the case before us, the President gave his direc- 
tions ; the instructions were put into form by the Sec- 
retary; the President read and approved them, and 
they were delivered to Mr. McLane. How do we 
know but that the paragraph which has offended the 
delicate sensibilities of gentlemen, had been ac- 
tually dictated by the President.' I do not think it 
at all improbable, and if so, is it not an act of gross 
injustice to make Mr. Van Buren responsible for it? 
The paragraphs so frequently alluded to in debate, 
are substantially true. I admit, they might as well 
have been omitted. Some one has said, that he 
" did not believe that gen. Jackson had ever read 
the instructions." Little does that senator know 
the President, if he believes so. I can assure that 
senator, that the President read, and carefully too, 
the instructions to Mr. McLane, and approved tliem.* 
I wish that senator would converse with the Presi- 
dent upon anv of our national affairs, and he will cer- 
tainly find that the President is as well, and I might 
say better informed than himself, on any thing done 
in any, or all, of the departments, and on all matters 

■"■ Since the above, speeeli was delivered, I have seen and 
conversed with the President, and liave been authorised to 
sav "that the objectionable parasrraphs alluded m the de- 
bate, were dictated by him to Mr. Van Buren, that they were 
his act, and not the act of Mr. Van Buren;" and I have been 
^iib-enuently informed, by a Senator from Temiessee, Uiat 
nrior to hi* leaving home, to assume his stauon m tlie Sen- 
ate the President had told him, that he (Gen. Jack.■3on^ 
would on all occasions of conieiiueiice, require the opinion 
of his cabinet in writing, thus (iis the Senator understood 
him) dispensing with Cabinet meetings. The fact, then, of 
not calling his Cabinet together, was the President'* own 
act, and not in consequence of the advisement of Mr. \ an 
Buren, as has been so repeatedly affirmed. 



98 



relating to our foreign affairs. At least I have found 
him so; in all matters, as well, and in some much 
better informed than I am. He is known by his ! 
friends to be partiailaily well informed, m every 
tiling that relates to our foreign relations. 

A Senator from Maine [Mr. Holmes] has said 
that " Mr. MrLane was sent to bow and cringe . 
at the feet of the British Minister." That Sen-: 
ator knows little of Mr. McLane! What! a native 
American, the son of a distinguished officer of the 
Revolution, bow and cringe at the feet of any man.' ! 
I can assure that Senator that Mr. McLane is not ; 
made of such pliant materials. No, Sir, Mr. Mc- \ 
Lane came to the point at once. Heaskedybr what 
was right. He set w^ no silly pretensions. He 
frankly demanded what his country required. The 
Miniitry tried to avoid a negotiation as tliey did with 
Mr. Gallatin. But, Sir, his firmness and frankness 
conquered the reluctance of the Ministry to enter 
into a negotiation. He convinced them, that thsy 
had departed from a rigid construction of the Act of 
Parliament of July, 1825, in the cases of France, 
Russia and Spain; they could not, therefore, in jus- 
tice, he asserted, refuse a similar departure, in the 
demand of equal justice to the United States. He 
frankly told them that he had come for the sole pur- 
pose of opening tlie Colonial trade, and that if not 
indulged in a negotiation he would return home. — 
Call you this bowiiig and cringing at the feet of the 
British Ministry? Is there any cringing in the de- 
spatches of Mr. McLane ? No one will say tliere is. 
The truth is, Mr. President, and it ought to be known 
to the people, that the front of the offence is, the ne- 
gotiation has completely succeeded under the in- 
structions given by Mr. Van Buren, and as com- 
pletely failed under those of another — a crime that 
never can be forgiven by the opponents of gen. 
Jackson. They will never pardon him for his suc- 
ceeding in all the negotiations, in which the prece- 
ding administration had completely failed. For in- 
stance, the late administration had attempted and 
failed, in all the following important objects, name- 
ly: — In the claims on France: — In the opening of 
the Black Sea to our commerce: — In making a trea- 
ty with Mexico: — In obtaining from Colombia a re- 
duction of the duties on our pioduce and manufac- 
tures, and in equalizing the duties charged upon our 
ti-ade, widr those charged to England. In all tliese 
matters, there was a complete failure by the one, 
and complete success by the other administration. 
The successful negotiations were under the instruc- 
tions of Mr. Van Buren. How then can j\Ir. Van 
Buren be pardoned by those who liad failed.' It is 
true, that the Convention with Denmark and Bra- 
zils fur seizures, had been closed, or nearly so, when 
the present administration came into office. Pay- 
ment by Sweden was effected by Mr. Connell, the 
agent of the claimants, without any instructions 
having been received by the Chaige des Affairs. — 
The Charge acted, ho told me, as a private friend of 
the agent, and succeeded. i 

[The Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) in a 
subsequent speech, remarked, that he had himself 
instructed Mr. Hughes, the Charge des Affiiircs to 
Sweden, to attend to the claims of our merchants 
against Sweden, and that the Senator from Mary- 
land, (Mr. Smith,) was either mistaken or misin- 
formed. i\Ir. Smith made no reply, but addressed 
ft note to the Secretary of State, for information, 
vhether Mr. Clay, when Secretary of State, had 
ever given the instructions, which he asserted had 
)Deen given by him to Mr. Hughes. The reply of 



the Secretary of State, contradicts the averment of 
Mr. Clay on this point.]! 

The senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) has char- 
ged Mr. McLane with having done injury to the 
navigating interest, hy the opening of the St. Law- 
rence, and the northern ports to our free intercourse 
— thus ti-ansferring, as he said, the can-ying of the 
produce of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, New-York, 
Vermont and Maine, to British ships, which would 
otherwise have been carried by our own ships. I be- 
lieve tire fanners of those states do not com.plain. — 
They know that their produce, sold in Montreal, is 
received there free of duty, and is carried to Eng- 
land, Ireland aud the V/est Indies, as if it were the 
produce of Canada. It is of little importance to 
them wiio is the carrier, provided they get an addi- 
tional market, and a better price for their produce. 
I regret, Mr, President, that I cannot give the cre- 
dit of that important act to Mr. McLane. He, 
however, had Bothing to do with it. It formed no 
part of his arrangement. The opening of that in- 
tercourse for certain articles of our produce had 
been done gratuitously by the British government 
in 1826, piior even to the attempt at negotiation by 
Mr. Gallatin. Now that act must have been known 
— it could not fail to have been kno«ni to the sena- 
tor (:\Ir. Clay) then the Secretary of State. V\''hy, 
then, does he new charge it as a fault committed by 
Mr. McLane, who had no more to do with it than 
tlie man in the moon? Nor had Mr. McLane any 
thing to do with the act of Great Britain passed 
subsequently to the arrangement made by him, by 
\^hich act other articles of our produce are admitted 
free of duty into the northern colonies, and thence 
are received in England and the West Indies, as if 
they were the produce of the Canadas. The Sena- 
tor [Mr. Clay] complains that the produce of our 
farmers, bordering on Canada, is received in Eng- 
land on equal terms with those of Canada, thus giv- 
ing a new market to a part of these articles, with- 
out which other markets might be overstocked. — 
The Senator [Mr. Clay,] has truly said, that the 

1 (NOTE.) The following Idler, and accompanying ex- 
tract from anoincr letter, on the some subject, have been re- 
ceived fioin the Secretary of State. 

Department of State, ) 

Wastihtgton, Jan. 30th, 1S3-2. 5 
Samuel Smith, Pr^q. Senate of the Uuitcit Stales: 

Sir - I have tlie honor to state, in answer to your enquiry 
ofye.«tertlay, thatthe records cnntainiag the instructions of 
the DepiirtiiientloMr. Christopher Hughes, when tbrmerly 
Charge d'Afliiires of the United States in Sweden, have been 
carctiilly exniuined, andthat all wliich is found in ihein, in 
relation to the then cUiins oi' our citizens upon t!ie govern- 
ment of tliat coantrv, is given, ill llie .subjoined cstiact of a 
letter from JMr. Aiianis to him, datcti the ITlh June, 1S19.— 
I am. Sir, very respectfully, voin- obedient servant, 

(Signed.) EDWARD LIVINGSTON. 

Extract of a loiter from 3Ir. Adams, Secretary of State, 
to l\lT. Hughes, Charge d'Atfaires of the United States at 
Stockholm :— 

Department of State, k 
nth June, 1919. 5 
" The President has been absent from the seat of govern- 
ment, on a tour to the south and west, since the 30th March. 
His return to this place, in the course oftwo or three weeks 
is expected. Since his departure 31r. Russell's latest corres- 
pondence will; the Sv.'edish government, on the sulyect of the 
Stralsund Claims, has been feceired, as well as that which 
followed Mr. Russell's taking leave ofthe Court. It is pain- 
ful to perceive the perseverence of the Swedish government, 
in withholding the indemnity, so jusUy and indisputably due 
to our fellow citizens, who suflisred "by those seizurejs, for 
which not even a plausible pretext is alleged. It is still more 
painful to find this denial ofjustice, accompanied by insinua- 
tions, neither candid nor friendly, and by allegations utterly 
■ des^titute of (i)undation. Earnestly desirous of maintaining, 
I with Sweden, the most fiiendly and harmonious relalions, I 
1 shall reserve, until after the President's return all further re- 
[ marks on the subject." 



1 



29 



wheat of the States bordering on the Canadas, pas- 
ses into Canada, is there ground, and the flour ship- 
ped t.^ British ports, as if it were the produce of 
the wheat of Canada. This has been the sponta- 
neous act of Great Britain, adopted for her oum in- 
terest, and is most certainly highly beneficial to our 
farmers. An immense number of sheep, hogs, hor- 
ses and cattle are driven annually from Maine to 
Quebec and New Brunswick. The farmers and 
graziers of Maine dififerin opinion with the Senator 
from Kentucky, (J.Ir. Clay,) and are really so sim- 
ple, as to behove, that their free interceurse with 
Lower Canada, and New Brunswick is highly bene- 
ficial to them. AVhether the intercourse with the 
British North American Colonics be beneficial or 
whether it be injurious, Ihe present administration, 
nor Mr. M'Lanehad little pait in it. It had been 
efifected, in part, before the arrangement was con- 
cluded, and soon after for another part. It formed, 
as I have previously said, no part of the arrange- 
ment Vvith Great Britain, and lliis fact must have 
been known by the Senator (Mr. Clay,) for he then 
acted as Secretary of State. We have for neariy 
hall a century been claim.ing the free navigation of 
the St. Lawrence as a natural right. It has at 
length been gratuitously conceded to us by Great 
Britain, and now the Senator from Kentucky. (Mr. 
Clay) complains of it as a grievance. 

The senator, (Mr. Clay,) also complains that the 
instructions state, " that the late administrations had 
abandotied ceximn pretensions." The senator ad- 
mits that these pretensions had been loaived. The 
senator from Georgia, (Mr. Forsyth,) has conten- 
ded that there is no difference in substance between 
these words. I leave this grave qu^istion to be set- 
tled by those learned senators, and will proceed to 
shew what those pretensions were, and wliich, I 
can hardly restrain myself from pronouncing, were 
puerile in the extreme. 

During the session of 1822, Congress was inform- 
ed, that an act was pending in parliament, for the 
opening of the colonial ports to the commerce of the 
United States. In consequence, an act passed, au- 
thorising the President, in case the act of Parhament 
was satisfactory to him, to open the ports of the 
United States to British vessels, by his proclamation. 
The act of parliament was deemed satisfactory, and 
a proclamation was accordingly issued, and the trade 
commenced. Unfortunately for our commerce, and 
I think conti'ary to justice, a ti'easury circular issu- 
ed, directing the collectors to charge British vessels 
entering our ports, with the alien tonnage and dis- 
criminating duties. This order was remonstrated 
against, (I think,) by Mr. Vaughan. The trade, 
however, went on uninterrupted. Congress met, 
and a bill was drafted in 1823, by Mr. Adams, then 
secretary of State, and passed both Houses, with 
little, if any debate. I voted for it, believing that it 
met, in a spirit of reciprocity, the act of parliament. 
This bill contained, however, one little word, " else- 
where," which completely defeated all our expecta- 
tions. It '.vas noticed by no one. The senator from 
Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) may have under- 
stood its effect. If he did so understand it, he was 
silent. The effect of that word " elsewhere" vvas 
to assume the pretensions alluded to in the instruc- 
tions. What were they? "That the produce of 
the United States should be received in the West 
Indies, on the payment of the same duties, as were 
payable on the produce of the North American colo- 
nies." The British Minister said, " as well might 
we ask that our sugar should be received free of du- 
ty, as is the sugar of Louisiana." 

The result was, that the British Government shut 



their colonial ports immediately, and thenceforward. 
The act of 1822, gave us a monopoly of the West 
India Trade. Itadmitted free of duly, a variety of 
articles, such as Indian corn, oats, Indian meal, peas, 
beans, &.c. &c. 

The British government thought, that we enter- 
tained a belief, that they could not do without our 
produce and by their acts of 27th June, and 5th of 
July, 1825, they opened their poits to all the world, 
on terms far less advantageous to the United States, 
than those of the act of 1822; and these are the 
pretensions which tlie instructions say had been 
abandoned, by the late administration. They were 
abandoned, Mv. President, by th^ following words 
in the instructions to Mr. Gallatin-—" ThattlieUni- 
States consent to waive the demand which they 
have heretofore made of the admission of their 
productions into British Colonies, at the same and 
no higher rate of duty, as similar articles are charge- 
able with, when imported from one into another 
British co-ony, with the exception of our produce 
descending the St. Lawrence and the Sorel." 
Now, sir, whatever difference there may be between 
the words ' ivaivf' and ' abandonTneiit' in common 
parlance, it is in this case, a complete abandonment 
in diplomatic language. What in simple truth, is 
after all, the great ground of objection .' It is this — 
Mr. M'Lcine has made an arrangement conform- 
ably to the preceding in struct ions from Mr. Adams 
to Air. Gallatin. Ilinc iUe lacrymce. 

The dissolution of the late cabinet Mr. President, 
has been charged upon Mr. Van Buren; and what 
is there at home or abroad that we have not heard 
charged to him? The elder Adams changed all 
his cabinet, except the Secretary of the Navy. The 
change was approved by the democratic party, and 
disapproved by the Aristocracy of the day. A change 
of the cabinet is, therefore, nothing new. We 
now grieve and lament over the late change, and 
yet never was a cabinet more traduced than the late 
one, by the whole of the opposition throughout the 
Union. The cabinet certainly was such an one, as 
did not meet the views or approbation of the friends 
of the administration. They regretted in silence 
the selections which the President had made. The 
gentlemen selected were honest and honorable men. 
They were my political friends, and I may say, 
some of them were personal intimates. Their dis- 
missal has done no harm to the nation. Tfee new 
cabinet is (I believe) more acceptable to all parties. 
The members of it are known to be competent to 
the special duties of their several departments, and 
equally so, as advisers in the great affairs of the na- 
tion. What is it to the people whether A., B., C, 
or D. , be at the head of affairs .' All the people ask, 
is, that their ditties shall be well -performed, and 
that they act in harmony. But the present President 
has held no cabinet councils for tv^xj years, and J\Ir. 
Van Buren is charged as being the adviser of the 
President to that course — is this mode new.' I be- 
lieve not — I think General Washington held no cab- 
inet council, during the first two years of his admin- 
istration, and I remember well, a discussion in strong 
terms, against the President's holding them, on the 
ground ot their being unconstitutional. I think that 
General Jackson was at that time a member of con- 
gress, and perhaps he then imbibed the opinion, that 
cabinet councils were not conformable to the con- 
stitution. Reasoning thus, I must believe, that the 
not assembling his cabinet was his own act, and 
not in consequence of the representations of Mr. 
Van Buren. The unpardonable crime of this gen- 
tleman has always been, that the President has 
great confidence in his talents and abilities, which 



30 



all will admit, lie possesses in an eminent degree. 
The senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Webster,) 
says that " instructions showing a difierence of opin- 
ion in the dominant party, with that of the defeated 
party, had never been given by any government." 
I aslv, Mr. President, on what ground does the sen- 
ator make that assertion.' Few nations, if any, ex- 
cept our own, have ever pubhshed the instructions 
to their Ministers — we, therefore, cannot know what 
has been done. But, I hardly think it possible that 
such instructions never have been given. Thev are 
natural, and were for Mr. McLanc alone, and never 
shewn by him to any person. But, I infer from Mr. 
Hartley's language to our commissioners at Paris, 
when treating for a peace, that he must have had 
some such instructions, as he would not otherwise 
have talked of a change of ministry, as holding out 
a fairer prospect of ultimately leading to a general 

peace. 

Mr. Van Buren has also been charged, with be- 
ing the father of what has been improperly called 
the " prescriptive system:" — or in other, and more 
appropriate language, " the removal ft'om office."— 
Where is the proof.' None can be produced:— all is 
surmise and conjecture. I act on no such ground. 
When an assertion, such as this, is made, I want 
proof of its being well founded. But I absolutely 
deny the charge, and will offer unquestionable proof 
of the correctness of the denial. The charge can- 
not possibly be substantiated, unless the senator who 
mede it, can satisfy this senate, that Mr. Van Bu- 
ren could he at Albany and Washington at one and 
the same time. I will simply state the facts. Mr. 
Van Buren was at Albany acting as governor of the 
state of New York when the extra session of the 
Senate met on the 4th March, 1S29. I think he, 
(Mr. V. B.) was nominated on the 5th of March. 
At this extra session of the Senate, seventy-five 
officers were appointed, principally to fill vacanies 
occasioned by removals from oiEce. Of these offi- 
cers Mr. Van Buren could know nothing. The ad- 
visers to this course, if there were any, were the 
members of the cabinet then present. Mr. Van 
Buren could know but few of those removed, or 
of those appointed. I well remember that I saw 
Mr. Van Buren in Baltimore alter my return home, 
and therefore conclude that it must have been at 
least a month between the time of his appointment, 
and his arrival at Washington. I think, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that I have proved that Mr. Van Buren could 
not have been the father of what is improperly call- 
ed the " proscriptive system;" — a system adopted 
by some of the States" of this Union both before, 
and after this administration came into office. For 
myself, I am ojjposed to removal from office for opin- 
ions declared. But, sir, I would remove any offi- 
cer, who made use of his office to force inferiors to 



act contrary to their wishes. I would remove every 
Postmaster, who had been known to frank the " Cof- 
fin-handbills," or any other abusive papers of either 
of the candidates. Few removals of consequence 
have been made in Maryland. I thinlc tour in Bal- 
timore, where the most important offices are. — One 
of these removals I regretted — it proceeded from 
the best feelings of the heart. 

Before I finish my remarks, Mr. President, I will 
notice what passed between the then Secretary of 
State, (Mr. Clay) and myself, in relation to the act 
of Parliament of July 1825. I first saw a copy of 
that act in Baltimore, and mentioned it to the Sec- 
retary. He said that he had the act in his posses- 
sion, and handed it to me. I asked him, whether 
the terms proposed were satisfactory.' He said that 
he considered they were all we could ask. I then 
observed, whynot issue a proclamation under our acts, 
and thus open the trade? He repfied, that he would 
prefer negotiation. I asked, why ■' for what will 
you negotiate .' We have nothing to do, but to give 
our assent, and the trade is at once opened. I had the 
act printed, and handed a copy to Mr. Adams, who 
had never seen it before. He agreed that the 
terms were satisfactory. I then pressed him to 
issue his proclamation, and told him that if he did 
not, I should be compelled to introduce a bill. He 
remarked, that he wished I would do so, and that 
he would not only sign it, but sign it with pleasure. I 
did prepare a bill, under the order of the Senate, 
and, doubtful whether it might be correctly drawn, 
so as to effect my object, I sent it to the then Secre- 
tary of State (Mr. Clay,) with a request that he 
would correct it if necessary. He replied in writ- 
ing, to tliis effect: — "that the bill was drafted to 
meet my object, that it was so doubtful whether it 
were best, to act by a law, or by negotiation, that it 
was indifierent which course was adopted." — The 
bill was opposed by Mr. Lloyd, who, it was believed, 
had the confidence of the executive. It failed to 
become a law, I believe, from want of time to act 
upon it. The Senator, (Mr. Clay,) hae said, Mr. 
Canning had observed, that even if the bill had 
passed, it could not have been admitted as satisfac- 
tory. Tliis observation may have arisen from its be- 
ing imperfectly drawy, or from some other cause. — 
Perhaps the British Minister expected that the Pre- 
sident would have opened our ports by proclamation, 
as he (Mr. Canning,) knew, that the President pos- 
sessed full power to do so, under our acts of 1S23 
and 1824, both of which he knew, liad been drafted 
by Mr. Adams when Secretary of State. 

I have deemed it necessary, Mr. President, to 
make these remarks in relation to the Colonial trade, 
as a reply to the observations on this subject which 
have fallen from the Senator from Kentuckv, (Mr. 
Clay.) 



31 



REMARKS OF Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, 

In the U. S. Senate, on the nomination of Mr. Van Buren. 



[Mr. Forsyth makes no apology for the rough 
sketch he presents of the remarks made by him in 
the secret sessions of the senate, on the nomination 
of Mr. Van Buren. The speeches against the nomin- 
ation having been, for the first time in the history of 
this government, thrown upon the people, it is due 
to the person assailed, that what was suggested on 
the other side should be known. Mr. Forsyth is 
well aware that, in executing his part of this duty, 
he has done justice neither to the subject nor to him- 
self.] 

I regret, Mr. President, that the senator from Mis- 
sissippi, (Mr. Poindexter,) has been so long absent 
from his seat, not only because he has been suffer- 
ing pain, but because had he been here, h-s could 
have escaped the commission of numerous errors in- 
to which he has been led. The friends of Mr. Van 
Buren have not obstructed inquiry into his conduct: 
they have challenged investigation, offered it in eve- 
ry and any form consistent with the obligations of the 
senate to its own character. The senator from 
Maine, (Mr. Holmes) shrunk from his own resolu- 
tion. It was laid aside by the votes of those 
opposed, contrary to the votes and wishes of 
those friendly to the nomination. That Senator 
was distinctly invited by one of the Senators from 
New- York, [Mr. Marcy,] to specify any act dishon- 
orable to the character of Mr. Van Buren, and a 
pledge given that the inquiry into it should he made 
in the amplest manner by a committee having all the 
powers necessary to the establishment of truth. — 
The Senator from Maine was distinctly told by the 
Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Hayne,] on what 
terms he could command his vote. He was told to 
cover the ground indicated, by proof, and he would 
join in the condemnation of the choice of the Presi- 
dent. The Senator from Maine deliberated on this 
offer, and, after deliberation, abandoned his resolu- 
tion, leaving all to grope their way to a conclusion, 
as accident or prejudice might direct them. A pro- 
mise was made, that he should have a committee if 
he would venture upon it, and the offer was delib- 
erately and most unequivocally declined. Yet, after 
all this, at this eleventh hour, the Senator from Mis- 
sissippi says, if the friends of Mr. Van Buren will 
solicit a committee, he will give us what he has col- 
lected, while confined to his sick chamber, and on 
which his own opinion is formed, and if the commit- 
tee is not raised, he will, with this matter in his pock- 
et, vote against the nomination, in order to preserve 
the morality of the nation, endangered by the be- 
stowal of a new office on a gambling politician. 

As the friend, personal and political, of Mr. Van 
Buren, I reject the liberal offer of the Senator, in 
defiance of his threatened negative on the nomination. 
Let him unite with those who, like him, are so anx- 
ious to preserve the morality of the country by re- 
jecting a man whose most odious crime is his rising 
popularity and transcendent ability. The friends of 
Mr. Van Buren will not degrade him by asking a 
Committee, to free him from the suspicions engen- 
tlered in the Senator's mind, in his search after cor- 
rect information, from sources within his reach. His 
character wants no such justification. Does tlie 
gentleman wish to justify his vote.' Let him pro- 1 



pose a Commttee; he shall have our concurrence. 
Does he desire to convince the Senate.' Let him 
produce the private source. Information which, I 
venture to say, like the only one he speaks oi ojoen- 
ly, is worthless in the eye of any man who is not so 
embittered by prejudice that he can not see trutli. 
This letter, by a former partizan, a paltry editor of 
a paltry newspaper, and to prove what? that Mr. 
Van Buren said that the late Cabinet was dissolved 
by the conspiracy of the Vice President, to drive 
Maj. Eaton from the Cabinet, and that ho withdrew 
to escape the consequences of the dissolution. Sir, 
Mr. Van Buren holds no such conversation with 
persons who were once his j^artizaiis, and now his 
enemies. 

But supposing he had declared, or does entertain, 
the opinion imputed to him. Is it a crime which 
disqualifies him for a high office, that he believes the 
charge made and sought to be established by the 
late Secretary of War.' If such be the Senator's 
opinion, can he tell us how far the exclusion extends \ 
The Senator's letter story is contradicted by his pre- 
viously expressed opinion. What, Sir, the most 
artful man in the world, proclaim to a paltry editor 
that he acted in the manner indicated, to escape the 
storm consequent on the dissolution of the Cabinet! 
If it had been true — if such had been his motive, 
he would have sought to conceal it from himself No 
degree of confidential intimacy could have tempted 
an artful intriguer to such a disclosure. The story 
if true, proves a man, whose extraordinary prudence, 
under all circumstances, through a long life in the 
stormy politics of a vexed and turbulent State, has 
gained him the confidence of his friends, and called 
down upon him the charge of consummate artifice 
from his enemies, to be a silly driveller, — a simple- 
ton, opening his budget of petty motives to one 
whose trade was to thrive, by making himself impor- 
tant by confidential and oracular disclosures in his- 
unknownjournal. 

Mr. Van Buren stands in a strange condition be- 
fore us; from the beginning of this administration, 
before he came to the post assigned him, until the 
present hour, he is held accountable by a certain de- 
scription of political men in this country for all the 
evil that has been done and all the good that has 
been omitted. Now, sir, if he is accountable for 
every thing, if his hand is to be traced every where, 
let him have credit for tlie good that has, and the 
evil that has not, been done. Balance the account 
of the admitted good and evil imputed, and the re- 
sult will fill the hearts of his enemies with the bit- 
terest disappomtment. But, sir, this is not the jus- 
tice intended for him. He is responsible tor all that 
is complained of Let us see the senator from Mis- 
sissippi (Mr. Poindexter's) catalogue. There were 
no Cabinet Councils — did the country suffer from 
this failure to follow the example of late admin- 
istratinns, from this adherence to the example of 
General Washington.' But there was one Cabinet 
C'o?</ifz7 called toset on alady's reputation. Indeed: 
and this Mr. Van Buren is also ansvveiable for. And 
is it true, sir, that the honorable members of the late 
cabinet, who rcmainerl so tranquilly at their posts 
enjoying all their emoluments and honors with be- 



s$s 



coming gi-atification, sufFered themselves to be de- 
prived of their accustomed rights of a seat and voice 
at the Council Board of deliberations on great mat- 
ters of vital interest to the public, and yet obeyed 
the beck and call of Mr. Van Buren, to set wpon a 
lady's reputation! Of v,'hat stutT were they made, 
that they did not distinctly ascertain if tins restric- 
tion of claimed right, and this insulting call upon 
them to step out of their appropriate spheres was the 
work o! Mr- Van Buren or the act of the President. 
If the first, why did they not demand his dismission, 
and, if refused j indignantly throw their commissions 
in the teeth of the Chief Magistrate. The omitted 
Cabinet Councils, and the single call, were no such 
dr(^adful offences until obliged to follow Mr. Van 
Buren's example and resign. The history of the last 
rear establishes the wisdom of the President in call- 
ing no Cabinet Council to deliberate, as there could 
have been no harmony in their consultations, and 
on the single question said to have been submitted, 
the Executive Cabinet have shown themselves in- 
competent to decide. He is not competent to de- 
cide on a Ladv's reputation, who throws out of view 
on the nuestion of how she should be treated, her 
frvilt ox innocence. I will not condescend further 
to refer to the trash with which the public press has 
been loaded and polluted for months, and unless the 
senator from jNlississippi has better evidence than 
the public has yet seen, the hope of implicating xAlr. 
Van Buren in the disturbances that preceded the 
dissolution of the Cabinet, is forlorn. 

Let us see the next crime in the catalogue of the 
senator from Mississippi (Mr. Poindexter). Mr. 
Van Buren intrigued the dissolution of the late ca- 
binet, taking care previously to secure a safe and 
prominent relreat in the mission to England. It is 
known to everv well informed man in this district 
that Mr. Van IJuren, by his admirable temper, his 
conciliating manners and unwearied exertions, kept 
the cabinet together long after its discordant niateri- 
als were so well ascertained that its dissolution soon- 
er or later was a matter of common si)eculation. Sir. 
nobody doubted that the parties could not get on to- 
gether, and the only surprise was, that the Presi- 
dent did not proceed" to restore harmony by the re- 
moval of those whose disagreemarits produced the 
discord. But Mr. Van Buren had the unparalleled 
effrontery to resign on motives of delicacy and disin- 
terestedness, and as this mode of conduct was so 
unusual, it has excited a vast deal of surmise and 
wonder. The senator from Mississippi (Mr. P. ) has 
however, satisfactorily to himself, solved the myste- 
ry. Mr. Van Buren arranged himself into a promi- 
nent place, before he resig7ied, and a new cabinet 
to suit his ambitious views. Now, sir, as to the 
proof of this preconcerted arrangement for his accom- 
modation and elevation. The President told some- 
body, who was a late secretary, that Mr. Van Buren 
was" to go to England, and named to him the secreta- 
ries, who were to come in; but this was after Mr. 
Van Buren had resigned. In the interview it is ac- 
knowledged that Mr. Van Burcn's letter of resigna- 
tion was handed to this volunteer repeater of confi- 
dential conversation with the Chief Magistrate. — 
But the senator says it was before the letter ivas 
ptiblished— thence he concludes Mr. V. B. had 
made a cat's paw of the President for the promotion 
of his own views: a most logical inference, truly ! 
And this new cabinet arranged to further Mr. V. 
B.'s unholy ambition! Is there man, woman or 
child in the country, who does not know and feel 
tiiat the change has been beneficial to the public, 
that there is now more strength, more virtue, and 
more harmony than there was before .' Is there any 



man who will hazard his reputation, by asserting 
that the present secretaries are capable of being 
m-ade the instruments of any m.an"s ambition, or so 
subject to the bias of individual influence, as the 
late? Partisans are not substituted for pure, disin- 
terested patriots: and let me say, sir, that morepar- 
tizans have gone out than have come in. 

But this mission to England was not sought by 
Mr. Van Buren: his friends know thatit was pressed 
i-n him by the President, and that it was reluctant- 
ly accepted at the earnest solicitations of -riends who 
were satisfied it would promote his own reputation, 
and redound to the honor and weHare of the natior<. 
I will not follow further the senator's lead. Long 
known to me as a politician and as a man, acting to- 
gether in the hour of pohtical adversity, when we 
had lost all but our honor — a witness of his move- 
ments when elevated to power, and in the possession 
of the confidence of the Chief Magistrate, and of 
the great majoritj' of the people, I have never wit- 
nessed aught in Mr. Van Buren which requires con- 
cealment, palliation or coloring — never any thing to 
lessen his character as a patriot and as a man — noth- 
ing which he might not desire to see exposed to the 
scrutiny of every member of this body, with the 
calm confidence of unsullied integrit}'. He is call- 
ed an artful man — a giant of artifice — a wily magi- 
cian. From whom does he receive these opprobi- 
ous names.' From open enemies and pretended 
friends. In the midst of all the charges that have been 
brought against him, in shapes more varying than 
those of Proteus, and thick as the autumnal leaves 
that strew the vale of Valambrosa, where is the false 
friend or malignant enemy that has fixed upon him 
one dishonorable or degrading act? If innocent of 
artifice, if governed by a high sense of honor, and 
regulating his conduct by elevated principles, this is 
not wonderful; but, if the result of skill, of the ars 
celere artem, he must be more cunning than the 
Devil himself, to have thus avoided the snares of 
enemies and the treachery of pretended friends. 

It is not possible, sir, that he should have escaped, 
had he been otherwise than pure. Those ignorant 
of his unrivalled knowledge of human character, 
his power of penetrating into the designs, and de- 
feating the purposes of his adversaries,seeing his rapid 
advance to public honors, and popular confidence, im- 
pute to art what is the natural result of those sim- 
ple causes. Extraordinary talent, untiring industry, 
incessant vigilance, the happiest temper, which 
success cannot corrupt nor disappointment sour; 
these are the sources of his unexampled success, — 
the magic arts— the artifices of intrigue, to which 
only he has resorted in his eventful life. Those who 
envy his success, may learn wisdom from his exam- 
ple. 

Having disposed of the catalogue of the Senator 
from Mississippi, let me advert to the grounds occu- 
pied by a little army of olijections on the other side 
of this chamber:— How many sacrifices of feeling 
to duty, are we not about to witness! the honorable 
Senators of Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, 
iMassachusetts, Ohio and Kentucky, are constrained 
by duty to vote against his nomination — and all, on 
public grounds — no private feeling; Oh no! nothing 
like it; public duty against private feeling, is the 
order *tf the day. And \\ hat is the dreadful public 
crime Mr. Van Buren has committed? Hear, 
—Sir, hear. He has degraded the country by giving 
instructions to the late Minister to Great Britain, 
Mr. McLane, about the West India trade. What 
instructions? Can it be those on which the act of 
1830 passed— those which have been among our 
printed documents for tliese twelve months, forming 



33 



f:art of the President's communicntion to Congress 
of Jan. 1831. Have those honorable gentlemen 
who are now so shocked at the public degradation, 
so eager to punish the author of this national dis- 
grace, been sleeping at their posts — no one to cry 
out, to ring the alarm, at the dangers to which the 
public honor was exposed — no one to interfere to 
prevent the United States from being placed at the 
foot-stool of the British throne? Quietly witnessing 
the consummation of the crime, passing an act with 
their knowledge of these instructions, to secure the 
boon, which \heynow see was begged in the name 
of party from th« British crown; we are now elec- 
trified by bursts of indignation at this first act 
of de.jradation in the history of American Diplo- 
macy I 

What a spectacle is here ! — How long is it since 
he who was the instrument to bow us down before 
Great Britain, was unanimously confirmed to a post 
of honor and important trust.' But the instrument 
by whom he was ordered to act, is to bear the 
punishment. The author of the instructions, he by 
whom they were given, is too high to be reached at 
present; the author of the crime, he who ordered it, 
escapes — he who commits it, by order, goes free; 
he who conveys the order, answers for both, and 
upon his head falls all the indignation of these in- 
censed Senators, acting upon public grounds, and 
reluctantly performing a pai^^ful — paijvfujL — j 
duty!!! 

Well, sir, to this degradation. It is found in the I 
instructions to IMr. McLane; and to make out their 
case, the honorable senators from Massachusetts and ' 
Kentucky, have given us a sketch of the history of j 
the West India negotiation. Both brought down 
their narratives to the taunting reply of Mr. Canning I 
to Mr. Gallatin, given during the late administration. | 
From this point, both these honorable senators found 
it convenient to slide — no, sir, to leap, over all in- 
tervening events to the instructions to Mr. McLane. 
With permission, I will fill up this little zinimportaiit 
chasm. The terras of the British act of Parliament 
not having been accepted by the United States, A- 
merican vessels were excluded, by an order in coun- 
cil, from the Briti.sh West India ports. Why this 
important interest was neglected, we have been just 
told by tlie senator from Kentucky: "the late ad- 
ministration were ignorant of the act of parliament 
until it was casually seen by them." " It was not 
officially comnaunicated by the English government 
to our government." " Even when we were colo- 
nies, we were not bound by British acts of parlia- 
ment, unless specially named in them." Indeed: 
is it possible that the late administration did not 
know an act of parliament affecting important inter- 
ests.' Where were all our accredited ministers and 
commercial agents in Great Britain, that this go- 
vernment was not informed of this measure, known 
to all Europe, and taken advantage of by most of the 
powers interested in it. But it was not officially 
communicated to us Well, .sir, was it officially 
communicated to any other government, interested 
in its contents as we were? The British govern- 
ment, I apprehend, would have considered such a 
communication a gross reflection upon our accredit- 
ed agents. It would have compelled them to say, 
in effect, we communicate to you an act, supposing 
your agents are too negligent of their duty to send it 
to you. What were our ministersand agents about; 
how were they employed, that they did not send to 
their government this important information? 

But tlie last excuse is worse than all; 'even when 
colonies, we wore not bound by acts of Parliament 
in which we were iwt uamed specially.' U'hat a 
5 



discovery ! and it is concluded from tliis wise recol- 
lection, that we are not now bound to take notice 
of acts of Parliament not specially and officially 
communicated to 2/s. I imagine w'e are not bound 
by them, communicated to us or not, but we are 
bound to know all those touching our interests, and 
any administration is severely reprehensible for ig- 
norance of them, and for failing to attend to those 
! that bear injuriously upon the interests of the peo-' 
i pie. The act was, however, at last known, and 
I when Mr. Gallatin presented himself to negociate, 
! with insti'uctions to waive all claims that were for' 
j merly presented, and had prevented an aiTange- 
ment, he was tauntingly told, you have lost your 
I day in court — the privilege; the boon, offered, had 
I not been secured by accepting the conditions: we 
have taken our course, negotiation is not our plan- 
{ Well, sir, what said the administration, of which the 
I honorable senator from Kentucky formed apart? 
There was an act of Congress, reqmring, on the 
I shutting of the British West India ports against us, 
an inierdict by proclamati(m. Smarting under this 
I taunting refusal to negotiate, what was done? the 
1 execution of an act of Congress positively directing 
I the proclamation, was suspended by executive au- 
1 thority for two months before the meeting of Con- 
I gress and during the whole succeeding session, to 
j see if Congress, Vv'ho had been prevented the pre- 
ceding session from legislating — the admiriistration 
preferring the eclat of a negotiation — could not leg- 
islate the executive oirt of the difficulty into which 
he had placed the countiy by negligence, or, if the 
senator from Kentucky pleases, ignorance of the act 
of Parliament. We all know how that effort ter- 
minated. The two Houses disagreed about the 
mode of effecting the purpose; both, however, wil- 
ling to take the privilege on the conditions proposed 
by Groat Britain. The Senate passed a bill — the 
House, under the influence of the senator from 
Massachusetts, amended it, and the question was, 
whether one or the other oblique path should be 
trodden. The session terminated withont legisla- 
tive enactment, and then, and not till then, the pro- 
clamation of interdiction was issued. Thus, sir,- 
smarting under the taunt of the British minister, 
our administration left the whole trade in the hands 
of Great Britain for six or eight months — sought to 
cover itself from censure by invoking legislative in- 
terposition, and then, was compelled to act on the 
suspended statute. 

The interdict being proclaimed, the trade stood 
upon the very advantageous footing, according to the 
senator's judgment, which we have lost by the ne- 
gotiation. Notwithstanding we were enjoying such 
eminent advantages, the late administration, in 
spite of the taunt, directed Mr. Gallatin to try again 
to procure what is now dis]iaraged, by opening the 
door of negotiation after it had been sliut in his lace 
He was again repulsed. But this liumiliation was 
not enough; Mr. Bai'bour wassent to London, and 
he toahad his instructions, and went, cap in liand, 
knocking at the closed door for negotiation. Sir, ho' 
knocked at the door of the British Ministry, under 
circumstances humiliating in the extreme. If a' 
gentleman should go a second time to a house, the 
proprietor of v.iiich, speaking from his window, had 
directed his porter to deny him to the visiter, his vi ■ 
sit would have been somev.hat like Mr. Barbour's 
second call. Yes, sir; yet the humiliation was vain- 
^the second as fruitless as the first. 

Such was the condition of this question when gen 
Jackson was placed at the head of the country. One 
of the first objects of his administration was the re- 
covery of the British V.'est India Trade; an arrange-' 



34 



mentof it upon terms of just reciprocity, satisfactory 
to both parties, and therefore, promising to be per- 
manent. Ml'. McLane was selected to go to Eng- 
land, and these much abused instructions prepared 
by the late Secretary of State. Let it be remember- 
ed, sir, these are instructions from the President of 
the United States, to the American Minister, never 
intended for the eye of the British government, and 
■which in no other country but ours, would ever have 
seen the light. 

The opening of this negotiation was the chief dif- 
ficulty. To remove it, two grounds are taken. It 
will be remembered that our refusal to accede to 
the terms of the act of parliament, was made the 
ground of refusing to treat with Mr. Gallatin and Mr. 
Barbour, both of whom went prepared to offer an 
arrangement by reciprocal legislation; taking the act 
of parliament as the British legislation. To obviate 
the difficulty, after a fair and full history of the trans- 
action, these suggestions are presented to Mr. Mc- 
Lane to be pressed so far as he might deem it use- 
ful and proper so to do. If the British persist in re- 
fusing to hear you, on this subject, remind them of 
the circumstances that have occurred; of the differ- 
ence of opinion among ourselves on it; of the aban- 
donment by the administration of those pretences 
that had prevented an adjustment of it; that they are 
not to be again brought for\^ard; that tlic past admi- 
nistration was not amenable to the British govenv 
ment, nor to any other, than the people of the Uni- 
ted States, who had passed upon all their acts. Say 
to the British, if it makes pretensions formerly ad- 
vanced the pretext fcr still declining to negotiate, 
the sensibility of the American people will be deep- 
ly awakened. That the tone of public feeling by a 
course so unwise and untenable, will be aggravated 
by the known fact that Great Britain had opened her 
colonial ports to Russia and France, notwithstanding 
a similar omission on their parts to accede in time, 
to the terms offered by the act of parliament. And 



great local interests, and if they could, without a ma- 
nifest and unjust distinction to our prejudice, they 
would have declined admitting the U. States to the 
privileges granted to the other maritime powers. 

Not satisfied with his condemnation of Mr. Van 
Buren's instructions, the Senator from Kentucky 
attempts to show us, by referring to another letter ot 
instructions, how this affair should have been con- 
ducted consistently with his ideas of national honor 
and dignity. The letter from which he has read to 
the Senate extracts, is, I think, signed H. Clay. 
Will the Senator tell us who is responsible for it? 
If he is, then he exhibits himself in the singular 
position of a man triumphantly contiasting tlie work 
of his own hand, with that of a rival author. The 
Senator knows that there were two other inshuc- 
tions, written by himself, of a subsequent date, one 
to Mr. Gallatin after Congress failed to legislate, 
and another to Gov. Barbour, neither of which is be- 
fore us, therefore, not to be conti-asted with Mr. 
Van Buren's work. I am content to abide by the 
result of a contrast of the instructions he has con- 
demned, with those he has quoted. Let us see how 
the gentleman's letter will bear the test of examina- 
tion. Mr. Gallatin, he says, was not instructed to 
abandon a right; we were to be at liberty at a more 
convenient season to resume it. Mr. Gallatin was 
to give a strong proof of our desire to conciliate by a 
temporary concession of what we had previously 
claimed throughout the whole negociation. Was 
Mr. Gallatin instructed to say to the British Gov- 
ernment, this is a temporary concession? No, sir, 
he was authorised to waive the claim, and make an 
aiTangement on the British basis. Put this into 
plain language, and what was it; stript of its diplo- 
matic drapery and verbiage, and it is neither more 
nor less than an abandonment of a pretension which, 
though we had supported by argument, we v/ere re- 
solved not to enforce by power. Sir, this covering 
up of a plain truth is the common trick of diplomacy; 



this, sir, is represented as the language of entreaty, [ it deceives no one, and had Mr. Gallatin presented 



as the begging of a boon. This menace of the pub 
lie indignation; this declaration that the late admin- 
istration was neither to be censured or praised by 
foreign nations; was amenable for their conduct to 
no eartlily tribunal but the people of the U. States, is 
tortured into a claim of privileges, on party gi-ounds 
for party purposes, and as a disgraceful attempt to 
throw upon a previous administration unmerited dis- 
grace, for the sake of currying favor with a foreign 
power, and that power of all others Great Britain. 
Great Britain could not resist this frank and open 
and manly appeal. Committed by their concession 
in favor of France and Russia, and the ministry dis- 
tinctly told by Mr. McLane that he would not re- 
main if they declined negotiation, or placed their re- 
fusal upon any other ground than an open declaration 
that their interests could not permit them to enter 
into a reciprocal engagement with the United States, 
the English cabinet reluctantly yielded; and then 
came the most odious feature in this transaction, that 
which has sharpened the intellect of the opposition, 
to discover dishonor in truth, atxi a want of dignity 
in a frank exposition of facts, i7s crowning success. 
Mr. McLane and Mr. Van Buren, under gen. Jack- 
son, succeeded in effecting an object of public soli- 
citude, that Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay and Mr. Gal- 
latin and Mr. Barbour could not obtain. The coun- 
try was humiliated by the preceding administration 
without success; hence the charge against Mr. Van 
Buren; hence, the overwhelming anxiety to prove, 
that the success of the late negotiation has been pur- 
chased by humiliation. The British cabinet desir- 
ed not to make the arrangement, it interfered with 



these conciliatory concessions, they must have been 
received as a virtual and total abandonment of our 
pretension. The honeyed words of right waived 
from a conciliatory spirit, and with the hope of cor- 
responding friendly dispositions, would have been 
received with a sneer, lurking in the official — arti- 
ficial smile of a— thoroughbred diplomatist. The 
Senator insists, however, it was a right and not a 
pretension. If it was a right why was it waived or 
surrendered.' For conciliation sake.' Why, sir, 
we were the offended party. England had taunted 
us. England had refused, once, twice, thrice, to 
negociatc, and yet to conciliate England, we were 
waiving a weU grounded right ! For what purpose 
were we thus conciliating.' To place the trade on 
its present footing, to the great injury of the naviga- 
tion and commerce of the United States. Such is 
the view now taken by several honorable Senators 
who have favored us with their opinion on this sub- 
ject. 

The present administration waived no right for 
conciliation sake; sacrificed no principle. It stood 
upon the truth , and truth only; and whatever may 
be the custom of others, and the ordinary usages of 
diplomacy, the administration was right. Nations 
(old themselves in iTie robes of falsehood, and swell 
and strut, in vain— to preserve an air of dignity and 
decorum. No nation ever was just to its own cha- 
racter, or preserved its dignity, that did not stand at 
all times before the world, in the sober and simple 
garb of truth. Sir, the character of our diplomacy 
has undergone a marked chrnge; we are no longer 
pretenders to skill and artifice; all our wiles are facts 



36 



and reasons — all our artifice, truth and justice. The 
honorable senator tells us that this instruction is 
false, or else it proves ]\Ir. V. B. to hare been crim- 
inally ignorant of what it was his duty to know. — 
How does he make this appear.' he alleges that Mr. 
V. B. charged the late administration with being 
the first to advance the pretension it subsequently a- 
bandoned — and this he declares is untrue, the pre- 
tension was set up before the late admiiristration 
came into power. Now, sir, as I read this para- 
graph, Mr. V. B. does not charge the late adminis- 
tration with being the first to advance this preten- 
sion. The senator will recollect this is a letter to 
Mr. McLane, whose personal knowledge is appealed 
to, and who must have understood the writer as al 
luding to a fact of general notoriety. The words are 
•' those who first advanced, iS(-c."have subsequent- 
ly abandoned. Can any man mistake the meaning — 
the meaning perfectly in accordance with the fact.' 
The pretension was advanced by the use of the fa- 



mous elsewhere in our act of congreas, aa act 
known to have been penned by Mr. Adams, who 
had previously occupied the ground covered by it, 
in his instructions to Mr. Rush. It was Mr. Adams 
who first advanced and abandoned this ground. The 
credit or tlie odium, which ever term belongs injus- 
tice to the act, attaches to Mr. Adams, and so Mr. 
McL. could only have understood it, and so must the 
senator from Kentucky, if he examines with a de- 
sire to understand it in the spirit of the author. 

There are considerations connected with Mr. V. 
B. if I deemed it consistent with his honor, that I 
eould present to those that hear me, that would not 
fail to make a deep impression upon their minds. 
But I ask no remembrance of his forbearance, no 
recollection of his magnanimity; I appeal to no one 
to imitate his mildness and courtesy and kindness 
in his deportment here, nor to judge him as he 
judged his rivals for fame and power. I demand 
for him, nothing but justiae — harsh — ha.TshJustice. 



Extract from Mr. CLAY'S second speech. 



The gentleman from New- York, (Mr. Marcy,) 
supposes, in adverting to the practice of proscrip- 
tion, which I understood prevailed in the dominant 
party in his state, that I had reflected upon the cha- 
racter of that State; and he alleges that the prac- 
tice has existed for 30 years, with every dominanc 
party, and was rigorously exercised many years ago, 
by my friends. Nothing was further from my inten- 
tion than to reflect in the smallest degree upon that 
powerful and respectable State. On the contrary, 
I honor and admire it for its noble institutions, its 
splendid public works, and its enterprize and intelU- 
gence. But I must pronounce my abhorrence of the 
practice to which I allude, no matter with whoni it 
originated, whether friend or foe, or by whom it may 
be continued. It has been carried by the present 
administration to a most odious extent in Kentucky. 
Almost every official incumbent who voted against 
the present Chief IMagistrate and who was within 



the Executive reach, has been hurled from ofiice; 
whilst tlrose who voted for him have been retained, 
no matter how long they had been in their stations. 
It is not practised in Kentucky^ by the State govern- 
ment, when in the hands of the opposition to this 
administration. Very lately. Gov. Metcalfe has ap- 
pointed to one of the three highest judicial stations 
in the State, a supporter of this administration. — 
The gentleman appointed is a nephew of the gentle- 
man from Maryland, (Gen. Smith,) and although 
highly respectable and eminent in his profession, he 
is not more so than twenty other lawyers in the 
State belonging to the opposite party. The gover- 
nor also renewed the appointment, or commissioned 
several gentlemen opposed to him in politics, as at- 
torneys for the com.monwealth. And recently the 
legislature appointed a president of one of the banks 
from the ranks of the friends of this administration, 
and several other otficers. 



Mr. MARCY'S remarks in reply to Mr. Clay. 



Mr. President, I will trouble the Senate with a 
few words in answer to what has just fallen from the 
honorable Senator from Kentucky. He did not 
intend, he assures us, to apply his animadversions 
to the whole State of New- York, but only to the 
dominant party there — the political friends of the 
Minister to London (Mr. VanBuren.) But, sir, the 
state of facts relative to the conduct of parties in 
that state, will not allow of such a restricted appli- 
cation. If there has been any thing censurable in 
that respect, the honoi-able Senator's own political 
friends must come in for a full share: if any distinc- 
tion is to be made, it cannot be in favor of those 
who^e good opinion he enjoys. A recurrence to 
facts will show, that proscription — if it is so to be 
called — enters more deeply into their practice when 
they get power, than it does into the practice of those 
who are selected as the particular objects of attack. 
I could refer to recent instances to verify the asser- 
tion. Give them success only in a single city, and 
the work of removal from office at once begins. — 
They leave very few " spared monuments;" almost 
all are swept off— from the highest to the lowest — 
down even to the lamp-lighters. The truth is, sir. 



the political friends of the senator from Kentucky 
are not converts to the liberal doctrines he has 
avowed on this occasion. If they have ever heard 
of them, they heed them not. 

After all, Mr. President, it is quite evident, from 
what we have heard, in relation to the conduct of 
parlies in Maryland and elsewhere, that New York 
does not differ from other states. Political men in 
all of them have the same passions, and are actua- 
ted by like motives, and only differ in conduct by 
reason of some difference in their circiamstances — 
Where there is alternation of success and defeat^ 
there will be removals — called restoration or retaha- 
tion by those who use power, and proscription by 
those who feel it. 

If the honorable senator understood me to speak 
of only one office-holder — a single spared monument, 
as he called it — friendly to the late administration, be- 
ing retained iiiN. York, he has misapprehended me. 
I'he number of changes made in that state is small — 
and I can assure him. that notwithstanding the fero- 
cious and proscribing pohcy ascribed to us, he has 
many friends now enjoying offices under both the 
General and State Governments; more than that,«r. 



36 



Mr. Van Buren has been censured by some of his 
own political friends, for having counteracted, as they 
suppose, the efforts \yhich have been made, in some 
instances, to effect changes. 

So far as my observation has extended, I can dis- 
cover no sort of resemblance between the actual con- 
dition of office holders opposed to the administration, 
and that which has been described. They were 
pourtrayed as a class (f men in the most abject state 
of fear and trembling, not daring to speak but in 
whispers on public atfiiirs, and even under restraints 
in their social intercourse. They may present them- 
selves or be presented in this light to the honorable 
senator, but I am sure they are not so presented to 
others, for that is not their true condition. Their 
political predilections and sentiments are not restrain- 
ed by fear or expressed in v.-hispers — their opposition 
is open and active and sometimes noisy, and yet 
they remain in undisturbed possession of their olh- 
ces. 

I must again allude to the grounds of the removal 
of some subordinate officers by the present adminis- 
tration, in oraer that it m.ay be understood upon 
what principle the act is vindicated, and to repel the 
charge of wanton prossription. The necessities ol 
the late administration were such that it compelled 
these officers to become partizans in the struggle. 
Many of them mingled in the hottest of the fight; 
they were paragraph writers for the newspapers, and 
the distributors of political handbills; and thereby 
exposed themselves to the vicissitude to which those 
are always exposed for whom the political contests 
in free governments are waged. If among this 
class of officers there was more mortality attendant 
upon the late conflict,it was because there was more 
disease. 

The senator from Kentucky has denounced re- 
movals from office as a violation of the freedom of 
opinion, and the liberty of speech and action. He 
advocates a course of "conduct towards poUtical op- 
ponents?, characterized by great moderation and for- 
bearance, and what is much more, he professes to 
have conformed his actions to his precepts. We all 
of us, I believe, admire these liberal sentiments, 
and ^eei disposed in our absti-act speculations, to 
adopt them as the rule of our conduct. The theory 
is. indeed, beaudful; but sir, do we put them in 



practice when brought to the experiment? I would 
ask the honorable senator, if he has, himself, prac- 
tised them? 1 will not say he has not. because he 
assures us he has; but I will say that some part of 
his public conduct has exposed him to a strong sus- 
picion of having departed from the path which he now 
points out as the true one, and of having wandered 
into that which he now thinks it is so censurable for 
othei-s to have pursued. 

It will be recollected, sir, that there is consider- 
able patronage attached to the department of State. 
To it appertains the selection of the newspapers 
in which' the laiNs of tlie United States are pub- 
ished. I well remember that while tliat honor- 
able senator was at the head of that department 
and when the fortunes of the late administration 
began to wane, the patronage of publishing the laws 
was withdrawn from certain public journals which 
had long enjoyed it. What was the cause 
of this change — this removal from office, I believe I 
may call it ? It was not a violent and vindictive op- 
position to the existing administration. Some of 
these journals had scarcely spoken in whispers 
against it. No, sir, it was for lukewarmness — 
for neutrahty. A want of zeal in the cause 
of the administration was aUeged to be the 

offence; proscription was the punishment. 

Where was then that sacred regard tor the freedom 
of opinion and the liberty of speech and action which 
we now hear so highly extolled? Was not this an 
attempt to control public opinion through the medi- 
um of the press,and to bring that press into a subser- 
viency to the views of the men in power? 

Sir, I wish not to be misunderstood. I have not 
alluded to these things for the purpose of accusation. 
I do not even complain of the manner in which the 
honorable senator used the patronage enh-usted to 
him; but I do complain that he has seen fit to bring 
before this body the conduct of a political party in 
New- York as a theme of reproach and animadversion 
when its conduct is not distinguishable (except for 
more moderation and tolerance) from that of his 
own persoaal and political friends in that State — 
when its conduct does not differ from that pursued 
by political men in other States: and when it has a 
justification, if it needed one, in the honorable 
senator's own example. 



Sketch of Mr. FORSYTH'S speech in reply to Mr. Miller. 



Mr. President: We were told by the senator who 
has just concluded, in the beginning of his extraor- 
dlnaiy speech, that he intended to publish his re- 
mark= for his own vindication. No friend of Mr. 
Yaii Buren will complain of the fulfilmsnt of this 
intchtion. 

Of the long list of offences committed by Mr 
Yin Buren, it was natural that the senator should 
heg.n with those at home. He says Gen. Jackson 
has been separated from him and his friends by the 
aitificfcs of Mr. Van Buren, and he. tells us of his 
own zeal and devotion to the hero of New-Orleans; 
and read extracts from his own speech at the Wax- 
aws, vvh'Mi he assured his auditors that " the philo- 
sophy of nature" was " a sufficient guaranty" for 
fii- General's "local attachment." How does it 
appear that i\[r. Van Buren produced this dreadful 
separation? No evidence of it is exhibited; and, 
with due deference to the senator, I would suggest 
that he was only mistaken in his theory; " the philo- 
sophy of nature" was not so strong a guaranty as he 



imagined. 



II. ..ig...^^. But, is what is insinuated, fact? Hag 
Gen. Jackson forgotten his local attachments, the 
land of his birth and of his earliest affections, where 
he has so many devoted and disinterested friends." — 
No, sir, it is not possible; General Jackson has not 
separated himself from South CaroUna, nor has South 
Carolina yet withdrawn from him, although the se- 
nator seems to be earnestly hunting up causes for a 
divorce. 

The radical party of South Carolina — the Union- 
ists — have, the Senator says, given in their adhe- 
sion from interested motives to i\Ir. Van Buren for 
the succession to the Presidency — and this is anoth- 
er of his crimes. Now, sir, I do not know that^ it 
is true that they desire th: succession of Mr. Van 
Buren; certainly they might go further and fare 
worse, and faro much worse and not go quite so far. 
For this supposed interested adhesion, they are stig- 
matised here by one of their senators. I am tread- 
ing, Mr. President, upon almost forbidden ground; 
travelling into a neighboring state to mingle in its 



37 



party strife; but I feel for these Radicals— these Un- 
ionists; we acted together in by-gone times; we think 
alike still; and if I were not to say a word in their 
behalf, as the two senators from the state are of the 
party opposed to them at home, they might chance to 
be condemned for the want of the plea of not guilty 
to tlie charge exhibited against them. Under these 
circumstances, I stand bound to repel the imputa- 
tions cast upon the anti-nuUitiers of South Carolina, 
and talcing up the evidence, shall prove that they are 
unjustly charged. What is this evidence.' The sen- 
ator who makes the charge on the question of the 
Seminole War, stood by the General with firmness 
and zeal; defended him right or wrong. The Ra- 
dicals were among his censurers, and the qutistion 
is emphatically asked, where was Georgia then? — 
Georgia then was where she is now, and where I 
trust she will ever be found, by the side of the Un- 
ionists, standing up for the right and reprehending 
the VvTong. The senator seems to imagine that the 
true patriotism consists in favor of one's friends, in 
ceasing to discriminate between truth and error. — 
Such is not our theory — for violated laws, we hold all 
responsible, ./)te/i</s and/oes. Recent developments 
have shown that General Jackson had means of de- 
fence he disdained to use, but if there is one Geor- 
gian, one Radical, who regrets the part he took 
in that transaction, I thank God, to me, he is un- 
known. I trust, sir, that to atone for his own error 
in defending what he now insinuates was loroiig, he 
does not, under the power of some master feel- 
ing, intend to censure every thing that is right. 
Mr. Cobb and Mr. Crawford have been named by 
the Senator. Mr. Cobb is no longer among us to 
answer. He did his duty, according to his concep- 
tion of that duty, in this and every other act of his 
public life. His friends know that his conduct was 
open, and his motives pure. The ground he stood 
upon here, he never abandoned while lie lived. Mr. 
Crawford, I am surprised the Senator should think — 
[Mr. Miller said he alluded to Mr. Crawford (Jo- 
el) a member of the house of representatives when 
the Seminole question was agitated.] I am glad to 
be corrected. Mr. Joel Crawford acted with his 
friends, and is guilty of the charge of having voted 
lor enquiry into the Seminole war. He hves to re- 
membei , not to regret that act. 

This Union party, which seems to haunt his ima- 
gination, if I am not strangely mistaken, had the hon- 
or, a short time since, to number him as a member 
of it. (Mr. Miller denied that he had ever been.) 
Well, sir, the Senator ought to know: but in this 
fact, I cannot be mistaken — the Senator v\-as a can- 
didate, brought forward by that party, for the state 
government — and the cause of postponing for two 
years the elevation of the accomplished gentleman 
who now stands at the helm of her affairs. The re- 
collection of that fact should have prevented a charge 
against them of being, from selfish motives, love of 
office, devoted to the dominant power: following like 
the sun-flower, the motions of the risen sun. To 
this last charge, 1 do not plead for them, not guilty — 
they do follow, like the sun-flower — the sun-flower 
does not change its attitude for the rising, or the me- 
ridian, or the setting sun. Elevating its broad face 
to the light of heaven, it stands unchanged, and is 
found when he sets in the western, as it stood when 
he rose in the eastern sky. Poetically understood, 
as Ovid descnbes the heliotrope, the Senator is 
right; what is good in poetry is not always good in 
prose, and the charge is, that for interest sake, the 
South Carolinians, unfriendly to the Senator, know 
no will but the President's, and are obedient to hi.s 
whistle. 



We are taught to expect shoals of them here, 
seeking as the rewards of devotion, honors and trusts, 
foreign missions, &c. &c. one of them being already 
before us, as the avant-courier of a thousand more! 
No allusion could have been more unfortunate. Who 
and what is the gentleman at whom this arrow has 
been cast, the first of the shoal of office seekers! 
Why, sir, the Senator himself speaks highly'of his 
character. Described by his colleague, he is a high- 
minded man, of extensive information, and unsullied 
integrity, in whose hands the best and dearest inter- 
ests of the people may be safely confided. And are 
such men office seekers, and interested devotees to 
existing power in South Carolina? If so, what are 
the patriots? They must be angels. They cannot 
be men. The Senator may eulogize his friends to 
the utmost of his power, exalt them in the scale of 
talent and integrity to the highest pitch; I venture 
to place his opponents by their side, and challenge 
comparison, without fearing or intending to depreci- 
ate m the slightest degree the honor of any of South 
Carolina's distinguished sons. 

The arrangement of the first Cabinet did not 
please the senator. South Carolina was neglected. 
Governor Hamilton was told he might have been 
Secretary of War, but for his violence against the 
tarifi; and what seemed to have added venom to the 
sting. South Carolina was not only passed over, but 
an Attorney General was looked for in Georgia; and 
all this was the work of the Dom Daniel of New- 
York. The senator is difficult to please. He liked 
not the first, and Ukes less the second Cabinet. But 
how was the fact in regard to Governor Hamilton ? 
If my memory deceives me not, he has pubUcly de- 
clared he might have had office, had he desired; he 
did not desire it. In this, and in all other things, 
he is incapable of deceit. Passing over the un- 
pardonable offence of going to Georgia for a member 
of the first Cabinet, does the senator really suppose 
the choice of the late Attorney General was the 
workof Mr. Van Buren? [Mr. Miller nodded 
an assent.] The senator never committed a more 
egregious mistake. Of all the men of the day, his 
equals in professional attainments and talents, ad- 
mitted to be great, I think he is the last man who 
would have been selected by Mr. Van Buren; and 
sure I am, Mr. Van Buren is the last man on earth 
to whose influence the late Attorney General would 
have been willing to owe his place. 

Considered as the originator and the fosterer of 
the disagreement between the first and second offi- 
cers of the Government, Mr. Van Buren is to bear 
the extremity of the Senator's wrath. On this sub- 
ject, Mr. President, I can only refer the Senate to 
the explicit and prompt denial of the justice of the 
charge by the party accused, long since publicly 
made, and never yet impeached by any one having 
a claim to character. The facts before the public 
prove that the charge is the coinage of a distemper- 
ed brain, baseless as the fabric of a vision. If the 
senator has any desire to enter into further enquiry, 
I repeat here this explicit and positive denial, in the 
name of an absent friend; and if he ventures upon 
the investigation, I pledge myself to satisfy even his 
pre-occupied mind, that not a shadow of suspicion 
can rest upen Mr. Van Buren's fame. I speak on 
the highest authority, when I state to the Senate, 
that his deportment in relation to that controversy, 
deserves the respect and admiration of every honora- 
ble and delicate mind. 

The Globe ! the Globe I the official paper, has a- 
bused the Senator and his friends. The editor was 
brought here by Mr. Van Buren, and he is account- 
able for all it contains — all that is bad, I mean: he 
gets credit for no good, appear where it may. 



38 



This charge is made because the Globe is called ; bigh party strife, a thorough-bred })artizan newspa- 
the Government paper, Mr. Van Buren and the Go- per. Leaving to others to adopt or reject the rule. 



vernment being previously identified. I must not 
be misunderstood as defending the editorial man- 
agement of the Globe. I see with regret many at- 
tacks on persons for matters that ought not to be 
brou-'ht before the pubhc. I detest all investiga- 
tion of the private transactions, all maUgnant scruti- 
ny into the every day business of political aspirants. 
Their private characters are known to the people; 
and so far as character should operate to their preju- 
dice, it will be w-eighed. Even the defensive re- 
criminations of the Globe, deserve censure. But, 
sir, I do not admit that Mr. Van Buren or the Ad- 
ministration, is responsible for the lighter offences, 
much less the enormities of any newspaper writer 
even for tire Globe, which, black as the gentle- 
man may consider it, is as pure as this unsullied 
sheet, compared with the journals that are pubhshed 
by its'side. But does the Senator mean to assert 
that every one who aids in the establishment of a 
newspaper, is responsible for its enormities.' Will 
tire Senator consent that Iris friends and all his op- 
ponents shall be judged by the same rule ? I ask 
him to glance his eye back over the history of the 
press in this District for a few past years. Does he 
remember the Federal Republican, the Washington 
City Gazette, the Washington Republican? Does 
he know any thing of the National Journal and the 
United States Telegraph.' Has he present to his 
recollection the atrocious calumnies by which they 
have been polluted— their dark insinuations and open 
falsehoods, by which the reputation of the virtuous 
of both sexes has been wantonly and grossly assail- 
ed! Slander has flown — still flies to all corners ot 
our country as if borne on the wings of the wind. 
If all these things are present to his view, will he 
admit that those who patronized these Journals were 
participators of those hateful crimes.' Can he trust 
the reputation and honor of his friends to the ap- 
plication of his own rule.' 

[The Vice President asked if tlie Senator 
from Georgia had any allusion to the occupant of tire 

Chair? , . . ^ 

Mr. Forsyth. By what authority, sir, do you 

3sk that question ? 

The Vice President said the allusion appear- 
ed to" be so direct, he had a right to ask the ques- 

Mr. Forsyth. I deny the right; and if it is 
considered as a question of order, I appeal to tire 
judgment of the Senate. 

The Vice President said if the allusion was 
directed to him there was no foundation for it. 

Mr. Miller rose and addressed the chair. 

Mr. Forsyth claimed the floor, which he said 
he'was in some danger of losing between the chair 
and the senator. 

The Vice President said the Senator from 
Georgia is entitled to tbe floor. 

Mr. Forsyth. That being understood, I give 
way with pleasure to the Senator for any explana- 
tion he may desire to make. 

Mr. Miller explained, and concluded by say- 
i,io-_as to the rule by which lie judged others in re- 
laUon to the oflicial press, he was willing that it 
should be applied to himself and his friends.] 

Mr. Forsyth replied to the argument as ex^^lain- 
ed, and then said— As to the public press, the Sen- 
ator consents that he and his friends shall be judged 
his own rule. Then God help the Senator's 



by 

friends, for they are beyond all human aid, and so 
are all those who patronize and support, in times of 



and to apply it oi- not to the patrons and supporters 
of the Journal and Telegraph, and to the former pat- 
rons of the Washington Republican, the Washing- 
ton City Gazette and Federal Republican, I deny, 
expUcitly, Mr. Van Buren's responsibility for any 
articles of the Globe. If the senator will produce 
satisfactory proof that he has been instrumental in 
establishing a press, here or elsewhere, for the pur- 
pose of dragging down by calumnies any good man's 
name, my vote shall damn him here — my voice ev- 
ery where. 

In the spirit of manly frankness, not in the spirit 
of this discussion, I appeal to the senator to reflect 
upon the irreconcileable contradiction between all Iris 
conclusions to Mr. Van Buren's prejudice, and the 
character of the Chief Magistrate — not the charac- 
ter of the President with his present friends and the 
people, but according to his own conceptions of that 
character before the President had the misfortune 
to tliink that the senator and his friends were pur- 
suing a policy dangerous to the union of the states. 
He was, as described by the senator, ah that was 
good and great, and performed with the purest pa- 
triotism more important services than any man 
since the days of Washington. His known firmness 
has been called obstinate self-will, by his adversa- 
ries, and he has been held up by his enemies as a 
roaring lion, requiring implicit obedience from all 
who venture to approach his den. Take the good 
or the bad of this description — judge this matter by 
the opinion of the President's friends, by the sena- 
tor's, or by the President's enemies, and the part 
allotted to Mr. Van Buren could not have been play- 
ed here. What, sir, this pure patriot, this great pub- 
lic benefactor— this self-willed, obstinate man — this 
roaring lion, to be a wet rag in any man's hands; a 
nose of wax, to be pinched into any and every shape 
by Mr. Van Buren's fingers! If the senator will 
calmly reflect, he will be compelled to acknowledge 
that he is or has been greatly mistaken. The Pre- 
sident is not what he declared him to be — what his 
friends or his enemies believe him to be — or else 
flagrant injustice has been done to Mr. Van Buren. 
I will not quarrel with the senator's choice. He may 
take either branch of the alternative. He cannot 
hold both. 

The formidable array of facts in support of his 
charge of corrupt management against Mr. Van Bu- 
ren, reminds me of an occurrence said to have hap- 
pened in France. There is, it seems, such a thing 
as an action to recover damages for seduction, which 
may be brought by an unfortunate lady who hws lis- 
tened too credulously to a flattering tongue. A 
pretty lady, who had quarrelled and parted with her 
lover, called on an advocate to bring a suit for the 
damages she had sustained. She described the ori- 
gin and progress of the liaison, the happiness ^e 
enjoyed while it lasted, and the time of its duration, 
and then its fatal end. The advocate hstened with 
profound attention to the story, and saw that it was 
one of those cases in which it was difficult to say 
who was in fault, the gentleman or the lady, arid that 
an action could not be maintained for seduction. — 
How to convey tlris, without offending the fair one, 
was the difticulty. All Frenchmen, of all profes- 
sions, avoid that as the deadliest of sins. The ad- 
vocate managed it with the proverbial skill of his 
profession and of his counti-y. " Madam, it would 
give me infinite pleasure to obey your wishes, and 
punish the ingrate who has separated himself trom 
so much beauty; but I am obliged to tell you that 
the facts are not sufficient to support an action."— 



39 



This seemed very strange to the lady, as she had 
been very minute in her detail of all the facts. — 
Pouting and petulant, she left the advocate to his 
books and briefs. The whole afiair was forgotten by 
him; but in the course of a few days the lady burst 
triumphantly into his room, exclaiming with joyful 



eagerness, " another fact, sir; he seduced me again 
this morning." And so it is with the senator. His 
facts, like the lady's, do net go to the point 
he must reach to effect his purpose. Each one is 
like unto the other, and all like the seduction of that 
mornmo:. 



Remarks of Mr. BROWN of N. C, on Mr. Van Buren's nomination. 



Mr. BROWN said, that unwilling as he had been, 
to participate in this discussion, he could not, injus- 
tice to his own feelings, and to the distinguished in- 
dividual, whose nomination, as Minister to England, 
was then before the Senate, refrain from giving ut- 
terance to the mingled sentiments of indignation and 
regret, at the course wliich the debate had taken. — 
A course which struck him as at least extraordinary, 
and extremely unjust towards the nominee. 

The acrimony with which Mr. Van Buren had 
been assailed, the epithets which had been so liberal- 
ly bestowed on him, required some vindication at 
the hands of those who were favorable to confirming 
his nomination, against the injurious, and as he be- 
lieved, unwarrantable charges which had been pre- 
ferred agamst him. He would here take leave tore- 
mind gentlemen, that reproachful epithets afforded 
but a poor substitute for argument and more espe- 
cially when addressed to a body, who.^e deliberations 
should be governed by calm and dispassionate con- 
sideration. 

The Senate had been told by the honorable gen- 
tleman, (Mr. Clay,) who had preceded him in this 
debate, that Mr. Van Buren, when acting as Secre- 
tary of State, had disgraced his country," by certain 
expressions contain-^d in his instructions, given to 
Mr. McLane, late Minister to England, in relation 
to the negotiation between the United States and 
Great Britain, on the subject of the West India 
trade. V/aiving all discussion as to whom the re- 
sponsibility should attach, for instructions given to 
our foreign Ministers, whether to the President of 
the United States or to his Secretary of State, he 
would concede to those opposed to the nomination, 
the principle contended for by them, that the Secre- 
tary of State was responsible for his official conduct, 
to the fullest extent. He knew Mr. Van Buren too 
well, to believe, for a moment, that he would desire 
that any shield should be interposed to screen him 
from a proper responsibility; he believed he would 
sooner court the strictest inquiry, than endeavor to 
escape from it. But to return to the instructions. — 
What was the language which was deemed so ex- 
ceptionable.' In order to remove the impression, 
that a feeling of hostility was felt in this country to- 
wards Great Britain, which the improvident course 
of the late administration in relation to the West 
India trade had produced, the late Secretary of State, 
had alluded in his instructions, to the change wliich 
the people of the United States had made, in those 
who administered our government, in (he following 
language: " the opportunities which you have de- 
rived, from a participation in our public councils, as 
well as other sources of information, will enable 
you to speak with confidence (as far as vou may deem 
it proper and useful so to do) of the respective parts 
taken by those to whom the administration of this 
government is now committed, in relation to the 
course heretofore pursued upon the subject of tlie 
colonial trade. Their views upon that point have 
been submitted to the people of the United State^, 
and the counsels by which your conduct is now di- 



rected, are the result of the judgment expres- 
sed by the only earthly tribunal to which the 
late administration was amenable for its acts."— 
In making this suggestion, Mr. Van Buren had as- 
serted what was most true; public opinion had dis- 
carded the late administration from power, and the 
party to whom the people of the United States had 
committed the rems of government, had been, and 
were then, favorable to the proposed arrano-ement. 
He could therefore recognise in this no solid objec- 
tion; but to his mind, it had more the appearance of 
the captiousness of verbal criticism, than any thing 
else. If there was any thing in the language which 
he had noticed, of a submissive tone, as gentlemen 
had supposed, by proceeding a little further, in the 
instructions, they would have found language which 
would effectually have removed all their apprehen- 
sions, and shows if the late secretary of state knew 
how to use the language of conciliation, he also knew 
how to speak in a tone of manly firmness when urg- 
ing the just claims of his country. That part of the 
instructions to which he had reference was as fol- 
lows: " If Great Britain deems it adverse to her in- 
terests to allow us to participate in the trade witli 
her caio^es, and finds nothing in the extension of 
it to others, to induce her to apply the same rule to 
us, she will, we hope, be sensible of the propriety of 
placing her refusal on those grounds. To set up tlie 
acts of the late administration, as the cause of for- 
feiture of privileges which would otherwise be ex- 
tended to the people of the United States, would, 
under existing circumstances, be unjust in itself 
and could not fail lo excite their deepest sensibiUty. 
The tone of feeling which a course so unwise and 
untenable is calculated to produce would doubtless 
be greatly aggravated, &c." Here was language 
firm and spirited, and indicating any thing else but a 
disposition to yield or compromit the honour of the 
country, and he could not but consider it as extremely 
unjust on the part of the opponents of the nomination, 
to single out detached parts of the instructions with- 
out adverting to their general tenor, and viewing 
them as a whole; the only fair rule to be resorted to 
in the exposition of public documents. 

But to come back to the charge of disgrace wliich 
had been so strongly urged and relied upon. How, 
sir, has the Minister to England dmgraced his coun- 
try.' Where was the evidence of the imputed dis- 
grace to be found.' Was it to be found in the fact 
that an arrangement has been made between the U. 
States and Great Britain, in relation to her colonial 
trade, substantially on the very same basis, as that 
proposed under the administration of Mr. Adams, 
and were gentlemen who then approved that mea- 
sure, now prepared to condemn the present admini- 
stration for having succeeded in forming such an ar- 
rangement with the British government, as the late 
administration had proffered, and had failed to ac- 
complish? Sir, safd Mr. B., it appears to me that 
tliere lies the rub; the objection to Mr. Van Buren, 
he feared with some gentlemen, was not thathe had 
done too little, but that he ha^l done too much — 



46 



Under his auspices as Secretary of State, a restora- 
tion of ttie West India trade had been effected, 
which the late administration had, by several suc- 
cessive missions in vain endeavored to effect for se- 
veral years. 

He called on gentlemen who had spoken so pa- 
thetically of their country's disgrace to adduce some 
proof in support of the charge — when had the Ame- 
rican name stood more honored abroad? Under what 
administration from the origin of the^overnment ti 
this time, had the national character held a morelof- 
tv elevation? There was no civilized country, but 
vvhat American character, American institutions, 
were themes of the highest panegyric, and none more 
than in that country, with whom this dishonorable 
transaction, is said to have taken place. The lively 
sensibility which the President had on all occasions 
shown to the honor of his country lorbadethe suppo- 
sition, that he would ever have sanctioned instruc- 
tions to a foreign Minister, by which t e^ character 
of his country was to be compromised. That he had 
authorised the language of conciliation to be used in 
the instructions to the minister to England, was 
most honorable to him. From what President could 
a spirit of conciliation and courtesy towards England, 
come with more propriety than from him, by whose 
valor in the iield, her pride had been humbled. 

There is no mark more infallible, as regards the 
degree of wisdom with wliich a nation is governed, 
than the respectability of that nation in other coun- 
tries. All history will testify to the truth of the re- 
mark, that an administration conducted feebly, is 
contemptible abroad, and that which is conducted 
with wisdom and vigor, never fails to secure res- 
pect. 

Mr. Brown said he would not institute a compari- 
son between the management of our diplomatic af- 
fairs, under the present administration, and that 
which had preceded it, and it would be from no ap- 
prehension, that the result would not redound great- 
ly to the credit of the existing administration. 
' Mr. VanBurenhad, he believed, while acting as 



Secretary of State, accomplished more in less time 
than any of his predecessors. Comparatively inex- 
perienced in the new station in which he had been 
placed, the readiness with which he had adapted 
himself to it, the rapidity with which he had been 
called to act, the case with which he had compre- 
hended the arduous and difficult duties of Secretary 
of State, bore honorable testimony to his abilities as 
a statesman. 

It had been objected to the nominee, that he had 
introduced into 'he goverment of the U. S. the party 
intrigues and discipline, said to prevail in his own 
State. Without stopping to notice what he consider- 
ed an unjust rellection, on the public character of a 
great and patriotic member of this confedeiacy, he 
called upon those who made the charge, to support 
it by proof. It was honorable to the reputation of 
Mr. Van Buren, both public and private, that when 
his enemies were asked to furnish evidence, in sup- 
port of the charges urged against him, that they 
w'^re unable to fix upon him any one of them, by 
the semblance of proof. Posse.ssing talents of a high 
ordei, and rapidly growing in the esteem of his coun- 
trymen, it was not a matter of surprise, that he had 
been marked out, as the victim of unmerited perse- 
cution. 

Mr. B. could conceive of no adequate reason or 
motives for rejecting the nomination of the Minister 
to England. He was peculiarly fitted for the sta- 
tion which he then filled. — His thorough and inti- 
mate acquaintance with the commercial relations 
of the two couiuries, pointed him out as a fit 
and proper representative of our interests at the 
Court of Great Britain. The State of New York 
had repeatedly vouched lor his character and 
standing, by bestowing on him the highest civil lion 
ors within her gift. Mr. B. said, he therefore, con- 
sidered it a duty, which he owed to the country, 
and to the individual then representing us at the 
Court of Great Britain, to vote for confirming hiS' 
nomination. 



LH.J 



Letter of th( 



Republican Members of the New-York Legislature, to 
the President. 



Albany, February D, 1832; 

^o his Ezcellency Andrew Jaci^son, 

Presiilent of the Uniled States. 

Sir — The undersigned in the performance 
t)f the duty Avith which they have been charg- 
ed by the republican members of iha legisla*- 
ture of the state of New York, have the hon- 
or to transmit herewith, the proceedings of a 
meeting held by them in the Capitol of tlds 



most distinguished fellow-citizen to your callj 
because they recognised in it additional 
conrn-m^tion of the high hopes they had 
unbibed of tlie cliaracter of your adminis- 
tration. They saw Avith undissembled plea- 
sure, bis effoi-ts to aid your Excellency in 
your successful attempt to restore the govern- 
ment to its purity ; and when his withdrawal 



state, on tlie 3d instant. In doing so, they i ^^^om the high station, to which your partiali- 



cannot restrain the expression of the strong 



feelings of 



indignation with which they View 



the act to which those proceedings refer. 

A great majority of the citizens of this 
state have given repeated evidences of the 
high estimation in Avhich they have held your 
administration of the affairs of the nation. — 
The inflexible integrity which has marked 
every act of your public life— ^the more than 
military courage, with which the responsibili- 
ties of your high station have been assumed, 
and the constant regard manifested by you to 
the purity of the Constitution, have strength- 
ened their attachment to your person and your 
government ; and they have not been regard- 
less of the manner in which the splendid ca- 
I'eer of a military life, has been followed by 
the many signal blessings which your ciWl 
administration, has bestowed upon our coun- 
try. 

This state witnessed with pride, the selec- 
tion of I\Ir. Van Buren by your Excellency 
as your Secretary of State: Our citizens had 
given repeated evidences of their confidence 
in him. With the watchfulness becoming a 
free people, they had regarded his conduct, 
in the various stations to which he had been 
called, by the constituted authorities of tlie 
state. They had witnessed liis attachment 
under all circumstances, to the principles of 
the democracy of the countr)', and ihay had 
then recently evinced the extent of their con- 
fidence by elcTating him to the highest office 
witliin their gift. They felt that your Excel 
lency's removal of him to a wider sphere was 
an act of justice at once to his capacity, hon- 
esty and fidelity to the constitution, and to 
the character of this state and the feelings of 



ty had exalted him, became necessary for the 
preservation of your peace against the attacks 
of those Aviio were alike enemies to your per- 
son and your principles, they beheld in your 
continued confidence in liim, irrefrajrable 
proof, that no combination could close the 
eyes of your Excellency, to the cause of your 
country, and no personal considerations, ar- 
rest your efforts for the conunon welfare. 
They saw, that amid the assaults made upon 
your principles by unfaithful servants, the 
honor of our country was not lost to your 
view, and they felt, that the same ardent pat- 
riotism, which had been manifested on the 
walls of New-Orleans, had been brought into 
the administration of the government. They 
saw and felt this, in the effort made by your 
Excellency, to acquire by frank and honest 
negotiation, that for which we had warred with 
Great Britain; wliich had been abandoned if 
not surrendered by subtle diplomacy; and 
upon which your Excellency, at least, had 
not been silent. 

The people of this whole country, felt in- 
deed that their confidence in your Excellency 
was not misplaced, for they saw and knew 
that no considerations of a private nature 
could for a moment alTect your ardent desire 
to promote the common weal. 

It is true they were aware that there wer^ 
citizens in this Union, Avho could justify and 
participate in lliis surrender of " free trade 
and sailor's rights," who could " calculate 
the value of the Union," and who could laugh 
at our calamities in a period of war and gene- 
ral distress. But they could not believe that 
such feelings could sway any branch of our 
hitlierto unsullied government, and least of all, 



its people. They cheerfully acquiesced in that they would ever dare combine to impede 
that removal, and freely surrendered their the attempt of your Excellency, to securef 

6 



42 



that for our country, for which we had expen- 
ded millions of our money, and for vvliich 
thousands of oiir citizens liad laid down their 
lives. 

Your Excellency has ever appreciated the 
feelings of the people of this country, and it 
will not now be difficult for you to judge of 
those Avhich pervade this whole community, 
against an act unprecedented in the annals of 
our country; which has impaired the liitherto 
exalted character of our national senate — 
wliich has insulted a State that yields to none 
in attachm.ent to the Union; and which has 
directly attacked an administration that is 
founded deep in the affections of the people. 

The state oi' New-York, sir, is capable in 
itself, of avenging the indignity thus offered to 
its character, in the person of its favorite son. 
But we should be unmindful of our duty, if 
Ave failed in the expression of our sympathy 
Avith your Excellency's feelings of mortifica- 
tion, at this degradation of the country you 
have loved so well. Yet be assured, sir, that 
there is a redeeming spirit in the people, and 
that those whom Ave have the honor to repre- 



sent, ardently tlesire an opportunity of ex- 
pressing their undiminished confidence in an 
administration, wliich has exalted the charac- 
ter of our country, Avhich has restored the pu- 
rity of the government, and has shed abroad 
upon the Avhole nation the continued bless- 
ings of peace and prosperity. 

In the fervent hope, tliat ysur Excellency 
may yet be spared many years to bless and 
adorn the only free nation upon earth, we Re- 
main Your sincere friends, and 
Verv humble servants, 
N. P. TALLMADGE, 
THOMAS ARMSTPONG, 
LEVI EEARDSLEY, 
JOHN F. HUBBARD, 
J. W. EDMONDS, 
CHAS. L. LIVINGSTON, 
G. OSTRANDER, 
J. W. AVILLIAMSON, 
PETER WOOD, 
ED. HOWELL, 
E. LITCHFIELD, 
AVM. SEYMOUR, 
AARON REMER, 
JAS. HUGHSTON, 
WM. H. ANGEL. 



THE PRESIDENT'S REPLY. 



WasJiinglon, February 23, 1832. 
Gentlemen: I liaAe had the honor to re- 
ceive your letter of the 9th inst. inclosing the 
resolutions passed " at a meeting of the Re- 
publican members of the Legislature of New- 
York" on the the rejection by the Senate of 
the United States of the nomination of Martin 
Van Buren as Minister to England. 

I am profoundly gr^iteful for the approba- 
tion Avhich that distinguished body of my re- 
publican felloAV-citizens of NeAV York have 
on that occasion, been pleased to express of 
the past administration of the affairs placed in 
my charge by the people of the United States, 
and for their generous offers of continued con- 
fidence and support. Conscious of the rec- 
titude of my intentions, my reliance, in all 
the vicissitudes of my public life, has been 
upon the virtue and patriotism of an enlight- 
ened people. Their g-enerous support has 
been my shield and my stay, when, in times 
past, the zealous performance of the arduous 
military duties allotted to me, though crown- 
ed Avith success, was sought to be made a 
ground of reproach : and this manifestation 
on the part of my fellow -citizens of the great 
state of New York, assures me that serA'ices 



not less faithful in the ciA'il administration 
Avill not be less successfully defended. 

When such reliance fails tlie public ser- 
vant, public liberty will be in danger : for, 
if the people become insensible to indigni- 
ties offered to those, Avho, Avith pure intentions 
devote themselves to the advancement of the 
safety and happiness of the countiy, public 
Airtue Avill cease to be respected, and public 
tnists Avill be sought for other rcAvards tlian 
those of patriotism. 

I cannot Avitlihold my entire concurrence 
Avilh the republican members of the legisla- 
ture in their high estmiation of their emuient 
felloAV-citizen, Avhom they have so generously 
come forAvard to sustain. To this I Avill add 
the assurance of my unduTiinished respect for 
his great public and priAate Avorth, and my 
full confidence in the integrity of liis char- 
acter. 

In calling him to the department of state 
from the exalted station he then occupied by 
the suffrages of the people of his natiAe state, 
1 Avas not influenced more by his acknow- 
ledged talents and jniblic services, than by 
the general aaIsIi and expectation of the Re- 
publican Party throughout the Union. The 



43 



signal ability and success which distinguish- 
ed his administration of the duties of that 
department, have fully justified the selection. 

I owe it to the late Secretary of State, to 
myself, and to the American people, on this 
occasion to state, that as far as is known to 
me, he had no participation Avliatever in the 
occurrences relative to myself and the second 
officer of the government, or in the dissolu- 
tion of the late cabinet ; and that there is no 
ground for imputing to him the having advi- 
sed those removals from office wliich, in tlie 
discharge of my constitutional functions, it 
was deemed proper to make. During his 
continuance in the cabinet, his exertions were 
directed to produce harmony among its mem- 
bers ; and he uniformly endeavored to sus- 
tain his colleagues. His final resignation was 
a sacrifice of official station to what he deem- 
ed the best interests of the countiy. 

Mr. McLane, oiu- then minister at London, 
having previously asked permission to retiu-n, 
it was my own anxious desire to commit the 
important points remaining open in our rela- 
tions with Great Britain, to a successor in 
whose peculiar fitness and capacity I had equal 
confidence: and to my selection, Mr, Van Bu- 
ren yielded a reluctant assent. In urging up- 
on him that sacrifice, I did not doubt that I 
was doing the best for the country, and act- 
ing in coincidence with tlie public wish ; and 
it certainly coidd not have been anticipated 
that, in the manner of successfully conduct- 
ing and terminating an important and com- 
plex negotiation, which liad previously re- 
ceived the sanction of both houses of con- 
gress, there would have been found motives 
for embarrassing the executive action and for 
interrupting an important foreign negotiation. 

I can never be led to doubt, that, in the in- 
structions under which that negotiation rela- 
tive to the trade with the British West Indies 
was conducted and successfully concluded, 
the people of the United States will find noth- 
ing either derogatory to the national dignity 
and honor, or improper for such an occasion. 

Those parts of the instructions which have 
been used to justify the rejection of Mr. Van 
Buren's nomination by the Senate of the Uni- 
ted States, proceeded from my own sugges- 
tion : w^ere the result of my own deliberate 
investigation and reflection; and now, as 
when they were dictated, appear to me to be 
entirely proper and consonant to my public 
duty. 

I feel, gentlemen, 'Aat I am incapable of 
tarnishing the pride or dignity of that country, 
whose glory, both in tlie field and in the civil 
administration, it lias been my object to ele- 



vate : and I feel assured tliat the exalted atti- 
tude which the American people maintain 
abroad, and the prosperity with which they 
are blessed at home, fully attest that their 
honor and happiness have been unsullied in 
my hands. 

A participation in the trade with the Bri- 
tish West India Islands, upon terms mutually 
satisfactoiy to the United States and Great 
Britain, liad been an object of constant soli- 
citude with our government from its origin. 
During the long and vexatious liistory of this 
subject, various propositions had been made 
with but partial success ; and in the adminis- 
tration of my immediate predecessor, more 
than one attempt to adjust it had ended in a 
total interruption of the ti'ade. 

The acknowledged importance of this 
branch of trade, the influence it was believed 
to have had in the elections which terminated 
in tlie change of the administration, and the 
general exjiectation on the part of the people, 
that renewed efforts, on frank and decisive 
grounds, might be successfully made to recov- 
er it, imposed upon me the duty of undertak- 
ing the task. 

Recently, however, Great Britain had more 
than once declined renewing the negotiation, 
and placed Jier refusal upon objections which 
she thought proper to take to the manner of 
our previous negotiation and to claims wliich 
had at various times been made upon the part 
of our government. 

The American government, notwithstand- 
ing, continued its etforts to obtain a participa- 
tion in the trade. It waived the claims at 
first insisted upon, as well as the objection to 
to the imposition by Great Britain of high- 
er duties upon tlie produce of the United 
States wiieii imported into the West Indies, 
than upon the produce of her own possessions, 
which objection had been taken in 1819 in a 
despatch of the then Secretary of State. 

A participation in the trade with the British 
West India Islands could not have been, at 
any time, demanded as a right ; any more 
than in that to flic British European ports. In 
the posture of affairs already adverted to there- 
fore, the Executive could ask nothin": more 
than to be permitted to engage in it upon tlie 
terms assented to by Ids predecessor and wliich 
were tlie same as those previously offered by 
Great Britain herself. Even these had been 
denied to the late administration, and for rea- 
sons arising from the views entertained by 
the British government of our conduct in the 
past negotiations. 

It was foreseen that tliis refusal might be 
repeated and on the same grounds. When it 



44 



became the duty of the Executive, rather 
than disappoint the expectations of the i)eo- 
ple and wholly abandon the trade, to continue 
the application, it was proper to meet the ob- 
jection to the past acts of the American ad- 
ministration, which objection, as had been 
foreseen, was actuallj^ made and for some tirue 
insisted upon. 

It is undoubtedly the duty of all to sustain, 
by an undivided and patriotic front, the ac- 
tion of the constituted authorities towards fo- 
reign nations: and this duty requires, that du- 
ring the continuance of an administration in 
office, nothing should be done to embaiTass 
the Executive intercourse in its foreign policy, 
unless upon a conviction tliat it is erroneous. 
A thorough change in the administrs,tion, 
however, raises up other authorities of equal 
dignity, and equally entitled to respect : and 
an open adoption of a diiFerent course implies 
no separation of the different parts of the gov- 
ernment : nor does an admission of the inex- 
pediency or imi)ractibility of previous de- 
mands imply any want of' respect for those 
^vho may have maintained them. 

To defend the claims, or pretensions, as 
they had been indiscrmiinately called, on 
either side, in the previous correspondence, 
which had been for a time urged by the late 
administration, would have been to defend 
wh^t that administration, by waiving them, 
had admitted to be untenable; and if that 
which had been by them conceded to be in- 
expedient, could not be sustained as proper, 
I perceive notliing derogatory, and surely 
nothing wrong, in conducting the negotiation 
upon the common and established principle, 
that in a change of administration there may 
be a corresponding change in the i)olicy and 
counsels of the government. This principle 
exists and is acted upon, in tlie diplomatic 
iind public transactions of all nations. The 
fact of its existence in the recent change of 
the administration of the American govern- 
ment, was as notorious as the circulation of 
the American press could make it; and whUe 
its influence upon the policy of foreign nations 
was both natural and reasonable, it was pro- 
per, according to my sense of duty, frankly 
to avow it, if the interests of the peoi)le of tlie 
United States should so rcciuirc. 

Such was the motive, and such and notliing 
more, is the true inqiort of tlie instructions, 
taken as a whole, wliich I directed to be giv- 
en to our minister at London, and which nei- 
ther expressed nor implied condemnation of 
the government of the United States, nor of 
the late administration, further than had been 
jjupliedby their own acts and admissions. 



I could not reconcile it to my sense of pub- 
Ifc duty, or of national digtdty, that the Uni- 
ted States should suffer continued injur}' or 
injustice, because a former administration had 
insisted upon terms which it had subsequent- 
ly waived, or had failed seasonably to accept 
an offer wliich it had afterwards been willing 
to embrace. The conduct of previous ad- 
ministrations was not to be discussed either 
for censure or defence; and only in case "the 
omission of tliis government to accept of the 
terms proposed v.hen heretofore ottered," 
should " be urged as an objection now," it 
was made the duty of the minister " to make 
the British government sensible of the injus- 
tice and inexpediency of such a course." 

Both the right and the propriety of setting 
up the past acts of previous administrations 
to justify the exclusion of the United States 
from a trade allowed to all other nations, was 
distinctly denied ; and the instructions au- 
tliorised the minister to state that such a course 
towards the United States "under existing 
" circumstances, would be unjust in itself, and 
" could not fail to excite the deepest sensi- 
" bility — 'the tone of feeling which a course 
" so unwise and untenable is calculated to 
" produce, would doubtless be greatly aggi'a- 
" vated by the consciousness that Great Bri- 
!' tain has, by orders in council, opened her 
" colonial ports to Russia and France, not 
" withstanding a similar omission on their 
" part to accept the terms offered by the act 
" of the 5th July, 1825;" — he was told 
" that he could not press this view of the 
subject too earnestly upon the consideration 
of the British ministry ;" and the prejudicial 
influence of a course on the part of the Bri- 
tish government so unwise and unjust upon 
the future relations of the two countries, was 
clearly announced in the declaration that "it 
has bearings and relations that reach beyond 
the immediate question under discussion." 

If tlie British government should decline 
an arrangement " on the ground of a change 
of opinion, or in order to promote her own in- 
terests," a prompt avowal of that purpose 
was demanded ; but if they should not be 
prepared to take that ground, "but suffer 
tlieinselvcs to desire that the United States 
should in expiation of supposed i>ast uo- 
croachmcnts, be driven to the necessity of 
retracing their legislative steps without know- 
ledge of its effect, and wholly dependent upon 
the indulgence of Great Britain," they Avere 
to be made sensible of the impracticability of 
tliat course, and to be taught to expect such 
measures on our part as would vindicate our 
national interest and honor. To announce 



45 



I 



distinctly to Great Britain that we would not 
submit to a continued injustice, on the g-round 
of any objection to the past conduct of the A- 
merican govermnent, whether it were right 
or wrong, was the obvious import of th 
whole instmctions. 

If the Executive had caused it to be stated 
to Great Britain, that tinding his predecessors 
to have been in error, as was implied by sub- 
sequently waiving the terms they had advoca- 
ted, and had, in expiation of those errors, 
abandoned the trade to the pleasure of the 
British government, the interests of the Uni- 
ted States would have sutfered, and their 
honor been reproached ; but in excluding 
such considerations, as inappropriate and un- 
just, and in clearly avowing his purpose not 
to submit to such treatment, he hoped to pro- 
mote the interests of his fellow citizens, and 
sustain the honor and dignity of the country. 
In all tliis, gentlemen, I have the approba- 
tion of my judgment and conscience. Act- 
ing upon the principle, early announced, of 
asldng nothing but what is right, and submit- 
ting to nothing that is wrong, I asked that on- 
ly of wliich the justice could not be denied. 
I asked a participation in the trade, upon 
terms just to the United States, and mutually 
advantageous to both countries. I directed a 
simple and distinct proposition, in conformity 
with these principles, to be submitted to the 
British govenunent ; and, resolving to be con- 
tent with nothing less, I ultimately arranged 
ihe trade upon the basis of that proposition, 
without retraction, modification or chang-e. — 
If the national lionor had not been thoutrht 



tarnished by retracing our steps, by claiming' 
more and ultimately consenting to take less, 
and in fact obtaining nothing ; I feel assured, 
that in reqiuring that wliich my predecessors 
had conceded to be enough, and obtaining all 
that was demanded, my countrymen Avill see 
no slain upon their dignity, their pride, or their 
honor. 

If I required greater satisfaction than I de- 
rive from a review of this subject, I should 
find it in the gratitude I feel for tlie success 
which has crowned my efforts. I shall always 
possess the gratifying recollection, that I havo 
not disajipointed the expectations of my coun- 
trj'men, who, under an arrangement depend- 
ing for its permanence upon our own wisdom, 
are participating in a vahial)le trade upon 
terms more advantageous than those which 
the illustrious Father of his Country was wil- 
ling to accept; upon terms as favorable as 
those which regulate the trade under our con- 
ventions with Great Britain, and which have 
been sought without success from the earliest 
periods of ourhistor}'. 

I pray you, gentlemen, to present to the 
republican members of the legislature of 
New- York, and to accept for yourselves indi- 
vidually, the assurance of my higliest regard 
and consideration. 

ANDREW JACKSON. 

Messrs. N. P. Tallmadge, Tliomas Arms- /ong, 
Levi Beardsley. John F. Hubbard, J. W. Ed 
mondii, Clias. L. Livina;sloii, Gideon Oslrander, 
John M. WilUanisoii, Peter Wood, E. Howell, 
Elisha Litthtield, William Seymour, Aarcui 
Reuier, James HughgtoD, "William H, Auael. 



Geiv. smith and Mr. CLAY. 



[From tlin ?\«tii.nal IhWUigencisr ] 

TO TPIE EDITORS. 

Gentlkme.v : Please to give a place in 3'our 

paper of to-morrow (if practicable) to the enclosed 

statement, and you w ill greatly oblige 

Your obedient servant, 

V2th February, 1832. S. SMITH. 

In a speech of Mr. Clay's, made in the 
Senate and reported in the Intelhgencer of 
the 30th January last, that gentleman sta- 
ted, " It (the bill for meeting the British 
act of Parliament) was brought before Con- 
gress in the session of 1S25-6, not at the 
instance of the American Executive, but 
upon the spontaneous and ill-judged motion 
of the gentleman from jVtaryland, (Mr. 
Smith,)" &c. 

In my reply, I made the following remarks: 
" Before I finish my remarks, Mr. President, I 
will notice what was passed between the then Se- 
cretary of State, (Mr. Clay,) and myself, in rela- 
tion to the act of Parliament of Jnly, 1825. I first 
saw a copy of that act in Baltimore, and mention- 
ed it to the Secretary. He said that he had the 
act in his possession , and handcd_it to me. I asked 
him, whether the terms proposed were satisfactory. 
He said that he considered they were all v.'e could 
a-sk. I then observed, why not issue a proclama- 
tion under our acts, and thus open the trade.' He 
replied, that he would prefer negotiation. I asked 
— why ? for what will you negotiate .' We have 
nothing to do, but to give om- a-ssent, and the trade 
J3 at once opened. I had the act printc:d,and hand- 
ed a copy to Mr. Adams, who had never seen it 
before. He agreed that the terms icere satisfacto- 
ry. I then pressed him to issue his proclamation, 
and told him that if he did not, I should be compel- 
led to introduce a bill. He remarked, that he wish- 
ed I would do so, and that he would not only sign 
it, but sign it with pleasure. I did prepare a bill, 
under the order of the Senate, and, doubtful whe- 
ther it might be correctly drawn, so as tocflcct m}' 
object, I sent it to the then Secretary of State 
(Mr. Clay,) with a request that ho would correct 
it if necessary. He replied in writing to this ellbct, 
" that the bill was drafted to meet my object, thai 
it was so doubtful whether it were best, to act by 
a law, or by negotiation, that it was indilVerent 
which course should be adopted." 

In answer to these, there appeared the 
following note, appended to a speech of Mr. 
Cl.\y, and published in the Intelligencer of 
the 9th instant : 

" There is a statement in the published speech of 
Gen. Smith, which if he made it in tlie Senate, did 
not attract my attention. He says he asked me 
whether the terms proposed by the British act of 



Parliament of July, 1825, were satisfactory"; and 
that 1 said I ' considered they were all we could 
as!v.' Now I am perfectly confident that the Sen- 
ator's recollection is inaccurate, and that I never 
did say to him that the terms proposed by the act 
were all we could ask. It is impossible I should 
have said so. For, by the terms of the act, to en- 
title Powers not colonial, (and of course the Uni- 
ted States) to its privileges, those Powers are re- 
quired to place the commerce and navigation of 
Great Britain (European as well as colonial) upon 
the footing of the most favored nation. That is, 
f v>"e had accepted the terms as tendered on the face 
of the act, we would have allowed British vessels 
all the privileges which we have granted by our 
treaties of reciprocity with Guatemala and other 
Powers. The vessels of Great Britain, therefore, 
v\' ould have been at liberty to import into the Uni- 
ted States, on an equal footing with our own, the 
productions of a7iy part of the globe, without a 
corresponding privilege on the part of our vessels, 
in the portii of Great Britain. It is true that the 
King; in Council was autliorized to dispense with 
some of the conditions of the act, in behalf of 
Povtors not possessing colonies. But whether the 
condition, embracing the principle of the most fa- 
vored nation, would have been dispensed with or 
not, was unknown to me at the time the Senator 
states the conversation to have happened. And, 
long after, Mr. Vaughan,the British Minister, was 
unable to atlord any information as to the act of 
Parliament. That very authority, vested in the 
King, dcm.onstrates the necessity there was for fur- 
ther explanation, if not negotiation. 

" AV^ith respect to the note from me to the Sena- 
tor, which he says he received accompanying the 
draft of the bill introduced by him, it would be 
more satisfactory if he would publish the note it- 
self, instead of what he represents to be an ex- 
tract. _ H. C." 

All my papers being in Baltimore, it has 
not been in my power to ascertain whether 
I have preserved the note alluded to, and 
the purport or " etiect" of which, I had 
undertaken to give from memor}-. I there- 
fore addressed a note to Mr. Cambreleng, 
wha was a member of the Committee of 
Comnierce in the House of Representatives 
at the time, to enquire whether he had had 
any commvmication, either verbal or writ- 
ten, with ]Mr. Ci.AY, on the subject. The 
following is his answer, which, as it appears 
to me, clearly, fully, and substantially sus- 
tains the statements made by me, front re- 
collection : 

Washingto^t, 11th Feb. 1832. 

Dear Sir : I have your note of this date inquir- 
in<r whether I had anV written or verbal communi- 



47 



cation with Mr. Clay, when Secretary of State, on 
the subject of the act of Parliament of July, 1825. 

After the passage of that act, tlK Comptroller of 
the Customs of Halifax, Nova Scotia, construed its 
provisions as applicable to vessels of the United 
States in that trade, and I had occasion to call Jlr. 
Clay's attention to that fact. Tlrat construction 
was afterwards overruled, by an order of the Co- 
lonial Government of the 23d of January, 1S26. — 
Having brought the act of Parliament to the con- 
sideraUon of "Mr. Clay, I suggested the propriety of 
reciprocating its provisions, in order to prevent the 
interdiction of our commerce with the British West 
Indies. I stated to him my intention of moving a 
resolution upon the subject, unless it should inter- 
fere with some arrangement of Government. I 
understood Mr. Clay as assenting to the propriety 
and necessity of adopting some reciprocal measure, 
and as expressing a desire that Congress would act 
upon the subject. Believing that I was acting en- 
tirely in accordance vvith the views of the Admin- 
istration, I submitted, on the 2.5th January, 1826, 
the following resolution: 

" That the Committee on Commerce bo instruc- 
ted to enquire into the expediency of amending the 
act of March 1st, 1823, so as to authorise the Pre- 
sident of the United States to remove the discrim- 
inating duties now imposed on British vessels and 
their cargoes, upon their entry from any British 
American possession; whenever he shall have been 
officially informed that American vessels and their 
cargoes are in like manner andmitted into the Bri- 
tish American colonial free ports." 



Some days afterwards, 1 received from you a 
note of Mr. Clay's, which he had requested you to 
shew me, stating, according to my recollection, that 
when he had conferred with me, he had expressed 
an opinion in favor of legislation — that, upon re- 
flection, he thought it would be best to secure this 
trade by negotiation — but though fovoring the lat- 
ter course, it was a doubtful question, and if Con- 
gress should legislate, the Government ought to 
acquiesce. I never heard, at that time, any objec- 
tion made to the terms of the act of Parliament — 
the only question then was, whether the trade, ac- 
cording to the stipulations of the act, should be secu- 
red by negotiation or by legislation. My impression 
was, that an act of Congress promptly rescinding 
the restrictions of the act of March, 1823, would 
have been immediately followed by such an order 
in Council as was required by the act of Parlia- 
ment, upon opening tliis trade to the countries not 
possessing colonies. 

I am, &c. C. C. CAMBRELENG. 

Hon. S. Smith, Maryland. 
It might have been added in my remarks, 
that the " motion" was not spontaneous on 
my part, but was the necessary consequence 
of a memorial from a highly respectable 
portion of my constituents, which memori- 
al was ultimately, on motion of Mr. Taze- 
well, referred to the Committee of Fi- 
nance, by whose order, the bill was repor- 
ted. S. S. 



V, 



LBJe'lO 



